[Index]
Monthly Global Tropical Cyclone Summary September 2004
[Summaries and Track Data] [Prepared by Gary Padgett]
| Tropical
Cyclones
[Index] |
Monthly Global Tropical Cyclone Summary September 2004 [Summaries and Track Data] [Prepared by Gary Padgett] |
MONTHLY GLOBAL TROPICAL CYCLONE SUMMARY
SEPTEMBER, 2004
(For general comments about the nature of these summaries, as well as
information on how to download the tabular cyclone track files, see
the Author's Note at the end of this summary.)
*************************************************************************
SPECIAL FEATURE - SOURCES OF TROPICAL CYCLONE INFORMATION
The purpose of this section is to list some websites where many and
varied types of tropical cyclone information are archived. Many readers
will know about these already, but for the benefit of those who don't,
I wanted to include them. After a couple of months, I will move this
note to the ending section of the summary.
(1) Aircraft Reconnaissance Information
---------------------------------------
Various types of messages from reconnaissance aircraft may be
retrieved from the following FTP site:
ftp://ftp.nhc.noaa.gov/pub/products/nhc/recon/>
Information regarding how to interpret the coded reconnaissance
messages may be found at the following URL:
http://www.nhc.noaa.gov/reconlist.shtml>
Links are also included to websites with further information about the
U. S. Air Force 53rd Weather Reconnaissance Squadron and the NOAA Air-
craft Operations Center.
(2) Archived Advisories
-----------------------
All the advisory products (public advisories, forecast/advisories,
strike probabilities, discussions, various graphics) issued by TPC/NHC
are archived on TPC's website. For the current year (using 2004 as an
example), the archived products can be found at:
http://www.nhc.noaa.gov/archive/2004/index.shtml>
Links to tropical products archives for earlier years are available at
the following URL:
http://www.nhc.noaa.gov/pastall.shtml>
JTWC warnings for past storms are archived on the NRL Monterry website:
http://www.nrlmry.navy.mil/tc_pages/tc_home.html>
On the NRL site, the link to past years can be found in the upper left
corner of the screen.
I am not aware at the moment of any other TCWC which archives all
its tropical cyclone warning/advisory products for public access, but
if I learn of any, I will add them to this list.
(3) Satellite Imagery
---------------------
Satellite images of tropical cyclones in various sensor bands are
available on the NRL Monterrey and University of Wisconsin websites,
courtesy of Jeff Hawkins and Chris Velden and their associates. The
links are:
http://www.nrlmry.navy.mil/tc_pages/tc_home.html>
http://cimss.ssec.wisc.edu/tropic/tropic.html>
On the NRL site, the link to past years can be found in the upper left
corner of the screen. For the CIMSS site, a link to data archives is
located in the lower left portion of the screen.
I'm sure there are other sites with available imagery available, and
as I learn of them, I will add the links to this list.
*************************************************************************
SEPTEMBER HIGHLIGHTS
--> Two large, severe hurricanes pass through northern Bahamas and
strike same point on Florida's East Coast
--> Tropical storm rains cause catastrophic loss of life in Haiti
--> Long-lived intense hurricane causes great destruction on Grenada,
Jamaica, Cayman Islands, western Cuba, and north-central U. S.
Gulf Coast
--> Japan experiences yet another tropical cyclone strike
*************************************************************************
***** Feature of the Month for September *****
ONE-HIT WONDERS AND SUPER TYPHOONS
During the summer (boreal) of 2003, I sent another one of my famous
surveys to the members of an informal tropical cyclone discussion group
of which I am a member. I also recently sent it to a few other persons
in the tropical cyclone community. I intend to present the results of
the survey as monthly features spread over several months, beginning with
the May, 2004, summary. The survey consisted of ten multiple-choice
questions dealing with various tropical or subtropical cyclone-related
issues, and two or three questions will be considered each month.
The persons responding to the survey are listed below. A special
thanks to each for taking the time to respond to the questions.
Michael Bath - New South Wales, Australia
Bruno Benjamin - Guadeloupe, French West Indies
Eric Blake - TPC/NHC, Miami, Florida, USA
Pete Bowyer - Canadian Hurricane Centre, Halifax, Nova Scotia, Canada
Kevin Boyle - Newchapel Observatory, Stoke-on-Trent, UK
Jeff Callaghan - BoM, Brisbane, Queensland, Australia
Simon Clarke - Brisbane, Queensland, Australia
Tony Cristaldi - NWS Office, Melbourne, Florida, USA
Roger Edson - University of Guam, USA
Chris Fogarty - Canadian Hurricane Centre, Halifax, Nova Scotia, Canada
James Franklin - TPC/NHC, Miami, Florida, USA
Bruce Harper - Brisbane, Queensland, Australia
Julian Heming - UK Meteorological Office, UK
Karl Hoarau - Cergy-Pontoise University, Paris, France
Greg Holland - BoM, Australia
Mark Kersemakers - BoM, Darwin, Northern Territory, Australia
Mark Lander - University of Guam, USA
Chris Landsea - AOML/HRD, Miami, Florida, USA
Gary Padgett - Alabama, USA
Michael V. Padua - Naga City, Philippines
Michael Pitt - US Navy
David Roberts - TPC/NHC, Miami, Florida, USA
David Roth - NOAA/HPC, Maryland, USA
Matthew Saxby - Queanbeyan, New South Wales, Australia
Carl Smith - Queensland, Australia
Phil Smith - Hong Kong, China
John Wallace - San Antonio, Texas, USA
Ray Zehr - Colorado State University, Ft. Collins, Colorado, USA
For each of the survey questions, the format will be as follows:
(1) the question as it appeared in the original survey
(2) summary of the responses to each of the possible choices
(3) some of the comments from various respondents
Following this I will attempt to present an analysis of the issues
plus interject my opinions on the subject.
The monthly feature for September focuses on the final two, and rather
unrelated, questions on the survey. One dealt with whether or not
warnings (as a named tropical cyclone) should be issued for very brief
systems with an expected lifetime of probably not more than two warning
cycles, i.e., 12 hours. The other was concerned with the JTWC-specific
term "super typhoon" and whether or not it should be retained or dropped.
There were 28 persons who responded to the survey questions. For
some questions, certain persons did not specify an answer, so the total
number of votes might not always add up to 28. Also, in some cases the
respondent was undecided between two of the choices. In those cases I
assigned 1/2 vote to each of the two choices. A word about the comments
included below: this article is extremely long as it is, and I could
not possibly include all the comments which the various respondents
made. I have selected certain ones which seem to cover the various
issues well, as well as a few which cast a different slant on the
question.
Question # 9 - "One-hit Wonders"
--------------------------------
(1) The question was: a small tropical storm has formed far out at sea,
is definitely known to meet the criteria for naming and issuing
warnings, but is no threat to land and almost certainly will not
exist as a tropical storm for more than 6 or 12 hours due to an
approaching cold front, or else is entering a region of strong
vertical shear--for whatever reason, it is pretty evident that no
more than 1 or 2 warnings as a tropical storm would be issued. What
should be done?
(A) Name and issue the 1 or 2 needed advisories
(B) Don't name nor issue TC advisories but include as an unnamed
TS in the seasonal report
(C) Treat as non-tropical (i.e., small LOW with locally strong
winds), don't issue TC advisories and don't include as an
after-the-fact storm
(2) Summary of Responses
(A) Name and issue needed advisories: 27.0 votes - 96%
(B) Don't name but include after-the-fact: 1.0 vote - 4%
(C) Ignore as a tropical cyclone: 0.0 votes - 0%
(3) Some Comments
Carl Smith (A): "Even if conditions appear to be about to become
unfavourable, there is always room for error, and unexpected things can
happen. In any case advisories should be issued so marine traffic
is alerted to its presence."
Chris Fogarty (A): "BUT, be confident it is worthy of naming!!!
Borderline cases should be kept as depressions! I find in recent years
some systems are getting named or declared as hurricanes that I have a
hard time believing, even after checking all kinds of data, sometimes
I can't convince myself with NHC's decision...or perhaps I'm missing
something."
Dave Roberts (A): "If it meets criteria for advisories/warnings...do it!
This is my biggest Pet Peeve."
David Roth (A): "Name and issue the 1 or 2 needed advisories. Since
there is significant error seen/acknowledged in intensity forecasts, who
really knows how long the system will survive? Tropical Depression #5 of
1988 off New England, the unnamed hurricane in November, 1991, the
unnamed hurricane/tropical storm of early September, 1992, off New
England, and the subtropical/tropical storm of late August, 2000, are
systems that spring to mind (only the 1991 storm is in the TC database)."
Greg Holland (A): "Name it and alert shipping. I don't know a forecast
system alive that is accurate enough to guarantee a 12-hour life time.
Reality is that it will be a judgement call by the forecaster."
James Franklin (A): "Should be named, BUT, depending on what else is
going on, this may not always be possible."
Julian Heming (A): "'Call it as it is' is the view I take. Storm
warnings are for marine traffic as well as landfall predictions, and we
also need to take a consistent approach in historical records, which are
closely tied with real-time warnings."
Kevin Boyle (A): "Even though it may appear to be a waste of time,
issuing advisories on a tropical storm is necessary just for awareness
purposes. In my opinion if this was not done, then I feel it would be
pointless warning on a tropical depression far out to sea regardless of
the number of warnings issued (if it was obvious the depression was not
going to intensify any more)."
Mark Lander (A): "Until our skill at intensity forecasting gets better
than it is, any cyclone that meets warning criteria as a TS should be
named. Many a weak, dissipating cyclone over water has gone on to bigger
and better things to the embarrassment of all. Also, in my old days at
the JTWC on Guam, it was often heard as an excuse not to warn because
such and such a TC was in the middle of nowhere, and that no one cared,
and that such and such a TC was a piece of garbage and would never amount
to anything. Well, sometimes there are more things that what we could
imagine going on in the middle of nowhere. One time a Sydney to Tokyo
sail race was taking place and the boats ran into trouble in one of these
"it's just in the middle of nowhere" storms. I think all TCs should be
considered a hazard worthy of advisories no matter where it is, or how
long we think it is going to last."
Pete Bowyer (A): "It's longevity and location shouldn't be a factor in
the classification process."
Phil Smith (A): "JMA named a storm that JTWC had shrugged off a year or
two back. I believe they were right. While the storm may not threaten
land, aeroplane pilots or the masters of ships will pay greater attention
to a NAME on the weather map than they will to an 'L', and if I were to
by flying on such a plane, I would like my pilot to have the best
possible information. I have heard one commercial pilot say to another:
"Since they haven't named it yet, we should be able to go straight
through it." "
(4) Analysis and Gary's Opinion
I agree wholeheartedly with the thrust of the above comments--such a
system should be named, regardless of its expected lifetime....AND,
regardless of its location. (We're not dabbling in real estate here!)
In particular, Julian Heming and Mark Lander sum up my feelings exactly.
Warnings are for marine traffic just as much as for populations of
coastal areas--a human life on a ship is just as valuable as one on terra
firma--and no one can ever say for certain that a sailing vessel won't
encounter one of those "middle of nowhere" storms. Also, the integrity
of the historical database is of utmost importance to me. And I do agree
with Phil Smith's assertion that everyone: the general public, ship
captains, aviators, oil company executives, etc., definitely pay more
attention to a tropical (or subtropical) weather system which bears a
name than to an unnamed system.
Regarding adding storms after-the-fact, there are occasions when there
may be uncertainty regarding the intensity, thermal characteristics or
wind field of a particular system and it is treated as a tropical
depression, non-tropical LOW, strong tropical wave or monsoon depression
operationally. In some cases later data and/or analysis may indicate
that the system was a tropical or subtropical storm, and such systems
should certainly be added to the "best tracks" database.
Question #10 - Super Typhoons
-----------------------------
(1) The question was: should JTWC drop the "super typhoon" category and
begin categorizing NW Pacific TCs according to the Saffir/Simpson
categories? Along with this, perhaps reserving the "super typhoon"
category for typhoons which reach S/S Category 5 status, i.e.,
140 kts?
(A) Yes
(B) No
(2) Summary of Responses
(A) Drop the use of "super typhoon": 12.0 votes - 46%
(B) Retain the term "super typhoon": 14.0 votes - 54%
(3) Some Comments
Bruce Harper (B): "I'm not averse to names which elicit the appropriate
response--the number categories are not as 'punchy' as the word 'super'.
Over here they use 'severe' for the same reason, but of course the scales
are all different. Nice if everyone could agree (?). Regarding the S/S:
this scale needs to be reformed to reflect the fact that it was (loosely)
based on 3-sec gusts and not maximum 1-min means (gusts)."
Bruno Benjamin (A): "I think S/S Category 5 could also be named 'Super
Hurricane' to match the NWP classification."
Carl Smith (B): "No, the storms in each basin have unique
characteristics. If category number systems are to be employed I favor
the Australian system, perhaps adapted to local conditions, as the NW
Pacific systems have more in common with Australian region systems than
Atlantic systems, and the Australian maximum gust categories are quite
relevant to the destructive potential of the cyclone."
Chris Fogarty (A): "Good idea--don't overuse 'super'--reserve for
Cat. 5's, or do away with it and just call it an intense typhoon like
NHC calls 'intense' hurricanes (Cat. 3+)"
Chris Landsea (B): "No, don't drop, but one could in addition institute
a Saffir/Simpson scale there. Only having 'typhoon' (65 kts) and then
'super typhoon' (130 kts) doesn't provide enough stratification of the
systems for the public."
Dave Roberts (no choice): "I think JTWC should follow the RSMC (JMA) on
this issue. Whatever criteria they use."
David Roth (A): "Yes. I like the super typhoon/Category 5 idea."
Jeff Callaghan (A): "We should all work towards using the same category
systems."
John Wallace (B): "The STY category has been used for a very long time,
and I think it has enough cachet in the NWP for continued use, rather
than adding the occasionally infuriating S/S system."
Mark Lander (A): " I think the introduction of the category system
would be a great service to the people of the Pacific. For purely
sentimental reasons, I would like to see "super typhoon" kept, but
matching it with the threshold of the Cat. 5 makes sense."
Michael Bath (no choice): "I just wish the categories were consistent
for all basins."
Pete Bowyer (A): "Yes, and with 'super typhoon' reserved for Cat 5's
that reach 150 or 160 knots (as opposed to a 'garden variety' Cat 5)."
Phil Smith (B): "'Super Typhoon' makes the average public sit up and
take notice more easily. If you introduce the S/S categories, then you
need to educate the people, and people do not easily adapt to a new way
of thinking......The only ones who would benefit from a standardisation
of categories world-wide would be the meteorologists and other weather
nuts like ourselves who like to keep track of and compare storms all
around the world. Keep in mind the question, 'What is the best way to
keep the public well-informed in each place?'"
Simon Clarke (A): "Super typhoon is a bad word anyway. Severe or Major
typhoon is better and would take these storms out of the realms of the
supernatural!!! In fact a lot of super typhoons are really not that
'super' anyway when you look at them in detail. I would like to see
world-wide consistency in categorisation. That sets a level playing
field and makes comparisons much more easy."
(4) Analysis and Gary's Opinion
Obviously the respondents were essentially evenly divided on this
question. I voted for Option B (retain super typhoon), but this was
a rather weak opinion. Actually, I think I would like the idea of
raising the super typhoon threshold 10 kts and equating it with the
Saffir/Simpson Category 5. One objection to redefining the super typhoon
might be that many typhoons thus labeled in the annual reports would
no longer be super typhoons, but then again, many of the older super
typhoons are no longer regarded as such because their peak MSWs have been
lowered from the often fantastically high values in the old reports.
Many of the comments strayed from the original question and touched
on the issue of perhaps a uniform classification scale for tropical
cyclones. The two widely-used scales are the Saffir/Simpson scale
(also slightly enlarged upon by Mark Lander and Chip Guard for use in
the Pacific islands) and the Australian Cyclone Severity Scale. In my
opinion, both scales are very good and well thought out, and I can not
honestly say one is superior to the other. They take different
approaches, and each was devised to enhance warnings and better inform
the public in their respective countries (the U. S. and Australia).
I know how well the general public in the U. S. has responded to the
Saffir/Simpson scale, and I would imagine that the Australian public
likewise understands and responds to the Australian scale. So it is
doubtful either would want to change a system which "ain't broke".
The perceived problem occurs when one considers a uniform global
classification scale for enhancing marine warnings and perhaps simply
for the sake of standardization. However, in my opinion, a 5-point
classification scale is not of all that much value to mariners--they are
trained to read the warnings received from various TCWCs and make their
decisions based upon the peak winds, the gale and storm radii, direction
and rate of movement, radii of various sea conditions, etc. In other
words, ship captains and meteorologists are experts at digesting and
acting upon all the technical information contained in tropical cyclone
warnings. The whole point of the Saffir/Simpson and Australian cyclone
scales is to take technical information and reduce it to something
simpler for the purpose of giving the general public guidance as to how
to respond to cyclone threats.
The final monthly feature based on the 2003 survey will be included
in the December, 2004, summary and will cover Question #8, which dealt
with the often controversial topic of wind reporting criteria for
tropical cyclones.
*************************************************************************
ACTIVITY BY BASINS
ATLANTIC (ATL) - North Atlantic Ocean, Caribbean Sea, Gulf of Mexico
Activity for September: 1 tropical depression
1 hurricane **
3 intense hurricanes
** - system actually reached hurricane intensity in early October
Sources of Information
----------------------
Most of the information presented below was obtained from the
various tropical cyclone products issued by the Tropical Prediction
Center/National Hurricane Center (TPC/NHC) in Miami, Florida:
discussions, public advisories, forecast/advisories, tropical weather
outlooks, special tropical disturbance statements, etc. Some
additional information may have been gleaned from the monthly
summaries prepared by the hurricane specialists and available on
TPC/NHC's website. All references to sustained winds imply a
1-minute averaging period unless otherwise noted.
Atlantic Tropical Activity for September
----------------------------------------
The very active pattern of tropical cyclone activity observed in
August in the Atlantic basin continued into September, though at a
slightly less hectic pace. Four named tropical cyclones formed during
the month--near the long-term (1950-2003) average of 3.50. All four
of these storms reached hurricane intensity, but Tropical Storm Lisa did
not do so until 2 October, so counts as an October hurricane. The 1950-
2003 average number of hurricanes is 2.44, so September was roughly
average in that department. It was in the intense hurricane category
(MSW > 95 kts) that September was well-above the mean. The long-term
average number of intense hurricanes is 1.24, and Hurricanes Ivan, Jeanne
and Karl all achieved that distinction.
Mighty Hurricane Ivan maintained an intensity at or above Saffir/
Simpson Category 3 for 10.25 days--certainly near if not setting a new
record for longevity as an intense hurricane. The great storm reached
Category 5 status on three separate occasions during its lifetime, and
spread death and destruction from the southern Windward Islands to the
eastern United States. Hurricane Jeanne, in its early tropical storm
stages, brought torrential rains to Haiti which led to catastrophic
loss of life. After loitering around in the western Atlantic for several
days and executing a large clockwise loop, Jeanne began a westward march
which ultimately carried it across the northern Bahamas and into the
Florida Peninsula on a track almost identical to that followed by
Hurricane Frances three weeks earlier. Hurricane Karl became a very
impressive Category 4 hurricane around mid-month, but fortunately
followed a harmless track northward through the central Atlantic. On
its heels came Tropical Storm Lisa, a very tenacious storm which hung
out in the east-central tropical Atlantic for almost a week, barely
clinging to life at times, but eventually following Karl northward
on a track between Bermuda and the Azores. Lisa managed to briefly
reach minimal hurricane intensity in early October before losing its
tropical characteristics.
In addition to the named tropical cyclones, there was an additional
tropical depression for which advisories were issued. An active tropical
wave left the coast of Africa on 29 August and passed north of the Cape
Verde Islands the next day. The system became fairly well-organized on
the 31st--SAB gave it a Dvorak classification as high as T2.5/2.5 at
1800 UTC. The system likely would have been upgraded to depression
status, but the next day convection began to wane as the disturbance
moved into a less-favorable environment. Over the next several days
the system moved northwestward, then northward, and finally northeastward
over the eastern Atlantic. Deep convection had returned by the 7th,
although southwesterly shear was inhibiting development somewhat. The
system was classified as Tropical Depression 10 at 0600 UTC on the 9th
of September when located about 365 nm west-southwest of the Azores.
However, at 1800 UTC convection had diminished and all that remained was
a low-level cloud swirl; hence, advisories were discontinued. In post-
analysis, it was decided to begin the tropical depression stage at
1200 UTC on 7 September. A short report on this system, written by
Richard Pasch, is available at the following URL:
http://www.nhc.noaa.gov/2004ten.shtml?>
Also, as the month of September opened, mighty Hurricane Frances
was passing north of the Turks and Caicos Islands at its peak intensity
of 125 kts. The large storm had fortunately weakened to Category 2
status before passing over the northwestern Bahamas and subsequently
striking the Florida coast. A full report on Frances can be found
in the August summary, and the official TPC/NHC report on Frances,
written by Jack Beven, may be found at the following URL:
http://www.nhc.noaa.gov/2004frances.shtml?>
HURRICANE IVAN
(TC-09)
2 - 25 September
------------------------------------
A. Storm History
----------------
When I began to write this account of Hurricane Ivan, the TPC/NHC
official storm report was not available online, so I wrote a fuller
account than I would have otherwise. But I have just discovered that
the official storm report on Ivan, authored by Stacy Stewart, has now
been placed on TPC/NHC's website. However, I am still including the
report which I had written. Ivan was a classic long-lived Cape Verde
hurricane which made two landfalls along the U. S. coast and reached
Saffir/Simpson Category 5 status three times, peaking at 145 kts on
12 September when located in the northwestern Caribbean Sea near Grand
Cayman Island. The great storm's origins lay with a vigorous tropical
wave which crossed the West African coast on 31 August. The system
strengthened into the season's 9th tropical depression on the afternoon
of 2 September when located about 485 nm southwest of the Cape Verde
Islands. Tropical Storm Ivan was christened at 0900 UTC on 3 September
when the system was centered approximately 530 nm southwest of the Cape
Verdes. The system continued westward at an unusually low-latitude
(for the Atlantic) along the 9th parallel. Ivan was upgraded to
hurricane status at 0900 UTC on 5 September when located about 1050 nm
east-southeast of the Lesser Antilles. An eye had appeared and satellite
intensity estimates from TAFB and SAB supported the upgrade.
Once upgraded to a hurricane, Ivan began to intensify very rapidly.
A special advisory package was issued at 1700 UTC upgrading Ivan to
a 100-kt Category 3 hurricane, located 865 nm east of the southern
Windward Islands and moving quickly westward near 19 kts. Ivan was
upgraded to major hurricane status at latitude 10.1N--to the author's
knowledge this is the southernmost point any Atlantic hurricane on
record has achieved Category 3 status. Ivan weakened some on the 6th
and 7th--the first reconnaissance mission into the hurricane on the
afternoon of the 6th found a 90-kt hurricane. This weakening was
possibly due to some slight westerly shear induced by a weak upper-level
LOW over the east-central Caribbean, and also to an eyewall replacement
cycle. The storm began to re-intensify on the morning of the 7th and
was back to Category 3 status before it passed near the island of
Grenada that afternoon with devastating results. (Ivan was the most
destructive hurricane to strike Grenada since Hurricane Janet of 1955,
which also became an intense Category 5 hurricane in the northwestern
Caribbean.)
Many tropical cyclones have weakened or met their demise while
traversing the southeastern Caribbean Sea. Dunn and Miller in
_Atlantic Hurricanes_ attribute the lack of significant hurricane
activity in this region at least in part to the significant divergence
in the lower tropospheric easterly flow as the easterly trades are
diverted into the semi-permanent LOW over the Amazon valley. As Ivan
chugged along westward, roughly parallel to the Venezuelan coastline,
it continued to strengthen, reaching Category 5 status at 0600 UTC
on 9 September when located about 75 nm northeast of Aruba in the
Netherlands Antilles. The CP was 922 mb, down 15 mb in 7 hours, and
an eyewall dropsonde recorded 175 kts at about 192 m above MSL. Intense
Hurricane Ivan maintained its estimated 140-kt MSW for 18 hours until
being downgraded slightly to 130 kts at 10/0000 UTC. The dangerous
storm by this time had its sights set on Jamaica, about 280 nm straight
ahead as it moved west-northwestward at 11 kts. Very fortunately for
Jamaica, as Ivan approached the island during the early morning hours
of 11 September, its eye wobbled westward enough that the core of
strongest winds remained offshore. Nonetheless, the island experienced
hurricane-force winds.
During the weakening episode on 10 September, Ivan's CP rose to
937 mb at 10/1800 UTC, then began to drop again, reaching a minimum of
910 mb around 0000 UTC on the 12th. This reading ranks Ivan 6th for the
lowest Atlantic basin CP on record, behind Camille (1969) and Mitch
(1998) at 905 mb, Allen (1980) at 899 mb, the Labor Day Hurricane of
1935 at 892 mb, and Gilbert (1988) at 888 mb. The MSW was estimated at
145 kts at this time and hurricane-force winds extended outward from
the center 30 nm to the southwest and 60 nm in the other quadrants.
The storm at this time was located about 115 nm southeast of Grand
Cayman, moving generally in a west-northwesterly direction. Ivan main-
tained its peak intensity for a 12-hour period before being downgraded
to Category 4 status again at 12/1200 UTC. This slight weakening trend
was likely due to an eyewall replacement cycle. The great storm weakened
only to 130 kts before being upgraded to Category 5 status (140 kts) for
the third time at 0600 UTC on 13 September. Ivan at this time was
located about 140 nm southeast of the western tip of Cuba, still moving
slowly west-northwestward. The hurricane's third round at Category 5
status was the longest--30 hours--with the CP dipping down to 912 mb
for a secondary minimum at 13/1800 UTC. Around 0000 UTC on 14 September
the extremely dangerous hurricane's center passed just off the western
tip of Cuba. Ivan's track by this time had become more northwesterly as
the cyclone headed into the confines of the Gulf of Mexico.
As the hurricane continued north-northwestward into the Gulf of
Mexico on the morning of the 14th, it began to slowly weaken, likely
due to a combination of an eyewall replacement cycle, the entrainment of
some very dry air and a restriction of the outflow in the northwestern
quadrant. The MSW had dropped to 120 kts by 14/1800 UTC where it
remained pegged for 24 hours. After the completion of the eyewall cycle,
convection made a temporary comeback, and since Ivan was forecast to
pass over a warm eddy during the next day or so, a modest strengthening
was anticipated. However, this did not materialize and the MSW was
reduced to 115 kts at 1800 UTC on 15 September. Ivan was centered
at this time about 150 nm south of the Alabama coastline and had made
an expected turn to the north. Hurricane-force winds extended outward
90 nm to the east of the center and 75 nm to the west while gales
covered an area 400 nm in diameter. Throughout the afternoon and evening
of the 15th and into the early morning hours of the 16th, the great storm
continued inexorably toward the Alabama coastline. The center of Ivan's
eye appears to have made landfall near Gulf Shores, Alabama, shortly
after 0700 UTC on the morning of 16 September with the MSW estimated at
113 kts--an upper-end Category 3 hurricane. (The intermediate advisory
nearest landfall gave the MSW as 130 statute miles-per hour, or 113 kts.)
NOTE: In post-storm analysis it has been determined that Ivan's MSW at
landfall was 105 kts.
Hurricane Ivan continued moving inland through west-central Alabama
as it gradually weakened. At 1800 UTC the cyclone was downgraded to
tropical storm status while passing about 70 km west-northwest of
Montgomery, Alabama. The weakening Ivan continued north-northeastward
across Alabama, dropping copious amounts of rainfall, and was down-
graded to a tropical depression during the evening of the 16th while
located about 40 km north-northwest of Gadsden, Alabama. This was
accomplished on the final TPC/NHC advisory, issued at 17/0300 UTC.
Warning responsibility was then assumed by HPC in Maryland. The residual
depression continued moving northeastward across the southeastern U. S.,
finally emerging into the Atlantic off the Delmarva Peninsula as an
extratropical gale. This LOW became elongated and the southern portion
of the surface circulation moved southwestward just off the southeastern
U. S. coast, eventually passing over south Florida and into the Gulf of
Mexico on 21 September.
This system began to show signs of intensification, and advisories
were re-initiated on Tropical Depression Ivan at 2300 UTC on the 22nd,
placing the center about 135 nm south of the mouth of the Mississippi
River. Intensification continued and a reconnaissance plane during the
evening measured a peak FLW of 47 kts within a convective band to the
north of the center; hence, the depression was re-upgraded to Tropical
Storm Ivan at 0300 UTC on 23 September. The resurrected Ivan continued
moving northwestward toward the western Louisiana/eastern Texas coasts.
A peak intensity of 50 kts during this second phase of Ivan's colorful
career was attained at 23/1500 UTC when a reconnaissance plane found
70-kt winds at 450 m during the morning within a burst of deep convection
which had fired off near the LLCC earlier in the morning. However,
thunderstorm activity subsequently dwindled and Ivan began to weaken.
Tropical Storm Ivan crossed the coast just west of Cameron, Louisiana,
around 0000 UTC on the 24th with peak winds estimated near 40 kts. The
system was downgraded once more to a depression at 24/0300 UTC and the
second "final" TPC/NHC advisory was issued at 0900 UTC with Ivan
weakening over southeastern Texas. HPC issued four advisories on Ivan,
the final one at 25/0900 UTC after the remnant LOW had become no longer
discernible in surface observations.
According to a discussion bulletin from NHC, the debate over what to
call the rejuvenated tropical cyclone in the Gulf of Mexico on the 22nd
of September was at times animated. Many tropical cyclone enthusiasts
and professional meteorologists on various discussion groups were fully
expecting the system to be named Matthew--the next available name on
the list. The decision to apply the name Ivan to the cyclone came
somewhat of a surprise. The NHC discussion bulletin at 23/2300 UTC
states that the decision was based primarily on the reasonable continuity
observed in the analysis of the surface and low-level circulation.
B. Meteorological Observations
------------------------------
The aforementioned TPC/NHC official storm report on Hurricane Ivan can
be accessed at the following link:
http://www.nhc.noaa.gov/2004ivan.shtml?>
Table 3 in the report lists selected surface observations made during
the hurricane's lifetime. The highest sustained wind recorded in
Grenada was 64 kts, gusting to 101 kts, at Point Salines. Grand Cayman
reported the highest wind recorded during Ivan's history--indeed the
highest wind recorded on land in an Atlantic hurricane in many years.
At 12/1500 UTC the station recorded a peak 1-min avg wind of 130 kts
with a peak gust of 149 kts. Cabo de San Antonio, Cuba, reported a
MSW of 96 kts with a peak gust of 104 kts as the storm passed just off
the western tip of the island. An automated weather observation station
on the oil drilling platform Ram Powell-VJ956, located about 70 nm south
of Mobile, Alabama, reported a sustained wind of 102 kts with a gust to
135 kts at 15/2256 UTC. (The instrument's elevation was 121.9 m above
MSL.) The strongest winds measured in the U. S. were an unofficial
report from a storm chaser near Gulf Shores, Alabama, of a sustained
wind of 77 kts with a gust to 99 kts at 0602 UTC on 16 September. The
Pensacola Naval Air Station reported a peak wind of 76 kts with a gust
to 93 kts at 16/0629 UTC. Television station WEAR-TV in Pensacola
recorded a storm total rainfall of 401 mm.
Interested persons should consult the Ivan report for more detailed
information.
C. Damage and Casualties
------------------------
Ivan is responsible for at least 94 deaths: 39 in Grenada, 26 in
the United States, 18 in Jamaica, 4 in the Dominican Republic, 3 in
Venezuela, 2 in the Cayman Islands, and 1 each in Tobago and Barbados.
The storm was also indirectly responsible for 31 deaths in the U. S.
The total U. S. monetary losses due to Ivan have been estimated
at $15 billion, ranking Ivan as the 3rd most destructive U. S. hurricane
to date, after Andrew (1992) and Charley (2004). The effects of wind
and water along the Alabama and western Florida Panhandle coastlines
left behind incredible devastation. As the slowly-weakening cyclone
moved northward through west-central Alabama, thousands of homes suffered
extensive damage due to trees falling on them. Homes in Montgomery,
Alabama, about 250 km inland, suffered extensive damage from falling
trees. Downed trees were also reported as far inland as Birmingham
and Atlanta. Millions of board feet of timber were blown down in the
forests and woodlands of Northwest Florida and Alabama.
Ivan left behind a trail of great destruction across the Caribbean.
Grenada and the Cayman Islands were especially hard-hit, with Cuba,
Jamaica and other islands also experiencing significant damage. The
Caribbean Development Bank has estimated the damage in the region at
more than US$3 billion. In the Caymans about 95% of the homes and
other buildings were damaged or destroyed, and on Grenada more than
14,000 homes were damaged or destroyed, and 80% of the nutmeg trees
were destroyed. On Jamaica at least 47,000 homes were damaged with
5600 being completely destroyed.
Many articles concerning Ivan's rampage through the Caribbean can be
accessed at the following URL:
http://www.reliefweb.int/w/rwb.nsf/vLND>
(Report written by Gary Padgett; some material taken from TPC/NHC storm
report authored by Stacy Stewart)
HURRICANE JEANNE
(TC-11)
13 September - 2 October
--------------------------------------------
A. Storm History
----------------
The official TPC/NHC report on Hurricane Jeanne, authored by Miles
Lawrence and Hugh Cobb, is now available at the following URL:
http://www.nhc.noaa.gov/2004jeanne.shtml?>
Jeanne was the seventh hurricane of the 2004 season and the sixth
major hurricane (MSW > 96 kts). (Karl, which formed after Jeanne,
became a major hurricane earlier than did Jeanne.) Jeanne formed from
a tropical wave of African origin and became a tropical depression on
the 13th just east of the Lesser Antilles. The depression moved into
the northeastern Caribbean where it became Tropical Storm Jeanne on
the 14th. The cyclone moved inland over southeastern Puerto Rico on
the 15th almost at hurricane intensity. After crossing Puerto Rico
Jeanne continued to intensify, reaching hurricane intensity over the
Mona Passage before striking the eastern tip of the Dominican Republic.
Jeanne moved slowly over the northern portion of the island of Hispaniola
on the 17th and weakened into a tropical depression. On 18 September,
after the center had moved northward back over the Atlantic, the original
LLCC moved westward away from the deep convection while a new center
formed well to the northeast of the old LLCC. Tropical Storm Jeanne
moved slowly through the Turks and Caicos Islands on the 19th, gradually
regaining its organization and strength. The slow movement of the
tropical storm contributed to torrential rainfall over Hispaniola. The
attendant flooding and mudslides led to thousands of fatalities in
Haiti.
The mid-level circulation from the remnants of Hurricane Ivan combined
with a shortwave trough in the westerlies and moved to the northeastern
U. S. coast where it eroded the ridge to the north of Jeanne. As a
result, Jeanne was left in a region with weak steering flow over the next
few days. From the 20th to the 24th Jeanne executed a large clockwise
loop a few hundred miles east of the northwestern Bahamas. The cyclone
regained hurricane intensity on the 20th and had become a Category 2
hurricane with 85-kt winds by 1200 UTC on the 22nd, but the intensity
leveled off and Jeanne weakened back to a Category 1 storm on the 24th
as it moved over its own previous track from a few days earlier and
encountered cooler waters caused by upwelling. As the storm moved away
from the cooler waters, it began to steadily re-intensify, becoming a
Category 2 hurricane once again at 1800 UTC on the 24th. Jeanne's
winds reached 100 kts at 25/1200 UTC as it was reaching Great Abaco
Island in the northwestern Bahamas. Jeanne followed a track across
Great Abaco and Grand Bahama Islands and to the eastern Florida coast
which was almost identical to that followed by Hurricane Frances three
weeks earlier.
Hurricane Jeanne made landfall at the southern end of Hutchinson
Island just east of Stuart at 0400 UTC on 26 September with peak winds
estimated at 105 kts over a very small area north of the center. The
slowly weakening storm then moved across central Florida, pretty much
right on top of Frances' track of three weeks earlier. The hurricane
weakened to a tropical storm at 26/1800 UTC while centered about 55 km
north of Tampa, Florida. In contrast to Frances, Jeanne's center did
not move back out over the northeastern Gulf of Mexico, although it
almost reached the coast in the Cedar Keys area. The weakening tropical
storm turned northward over Georgia and was downgraded to a tropical
depression on the 27th. The depression subsequently moved over the
Carolinas, Virginia and the Delmarva Peninsula before merging with a
frontal zone and losing tropical characteristics on the 29th while moving
eastward away from the U. S. mid-Atlantic coast.
B. Meteorological Observations
------------------------------
The highest sustained (1-min avg) surface wind reported in Florida
was 79 kts at the Melbourne NWS office. A reading of 69 kts was taken
on the north shore of Lake Okeechobee at 0515 UTC on the 26th. A C-MAN
station on Grand Bahama reported 77 kts at 26/0000 UTC when the center
was located about 35 nm northwest of the station. The highest wind gust
reported in Florida was 111 kts at Ft. Pierce Inlet, and a 106-kt gust
was reported from Vero Beach. Rainfalls of up to 200 mm accompanied
Jeanne as it moved across the Peninsula. A narrow band of 280-330 mm
was observed in the vicinity of the eyewall track over Osceola, Broward
and Indian River counties. A radar-estimated maximum of 280 mm was
observed over extreme northeastern Florida in Duval and Nassau counties.
Many more observations are available in the official storm report at
the link given above.
C. Damage and Casualties
------------------------
Press reports indicated that more than 3000 persons lost their lives
in Haiti due to flooding and mudslides, including nearly 2900 in the
coastal city of Gonaives. Some 200,000 people in the city lost their
homes, belongings and livelihoods. One death directly related to Jeanne
was reported in Puerto Rico, two in Florida, and one in South Carolina,
the latter due to a tornado. The total damage estimate in the U. S. has
been placed at $6.5 billion.
More articles concerning the destructive effects of Jeanne in the
Caribbean may be found at the following website:
http://www.reliefweb.int/w/rwb.nsf/vLND>
(Report written by Gary Padgett; some material taken from TPC/NHC storm
report authored by Miles Lawrence and Hugh Cobb)
HURRICANE KARL
(TC-12)
16 - 26 September
-------------------------------------
The official TPC/NHC storm report on Hurricane Karl, authored by
Jack Beven, is available at the following URL:
http://www.nhc.noaa.gov/2004karl.shtml?>
There is not a whole lot to say about Hurricane Karl. The storm
became an impressive Category 4 hurricane but, in stark contrast to
the preceding several hurricanes, pursued a harmless course northward
through the mid-Atlantic. The pre-Karl wave emerged from Africa on
13 September and had become organized enough to be classified as a
tropical depression by the 16th--the same day that destructive Hurricane
Ivan made landfall along the northern Gulf Coast. Tropical Storm Karl
was christened on the 17th, and had strengthened into a hurricane the
next day while moving west-northwestward. The cyclone became a major
hurricane (Category 3) early on the 19th, and reached its peak intensity
of 125 kts on 21 September. The hurricane had by this time turned
northward toward a weakness in the subtropical ridge, and on the 22nd
turned north-northeastward in response to a baroclinic trough developing
to the north. Karl weakened to 90 kts on the 22nd, apparently due to
an eyewall cycle, but rebounded to 110 kts on the 23rd. Following this
secondary peak in intensity, Karl began to weaken rather rapidly as it
began to transform into an extratropical cyclone. The former Category 4
hurricane had completed its transition into an extratropical cyclone
by early on the 25th a little over 500 nm east of Newfoundland. The
remnant extratropical LOW eventually reached Norway before being absorbed
by another LOW.
No damage or casualties are known to have resulted from Hurricane
Karl.
(Report written by Gary Padgett; some material taken TPC/NHC storm
report authored by Jack Beven)
HURRICANE LISA
(TC-13)
19 September - 3 October
--------------------------------------------
The official TPC/NHC report on Hurricane Lisa, authored by James
Franklin and David Roberts, is available at the following URL:
http://www.nhc.noaa.gov/2004lisa.shtml?>
Like its predecessor, Hurricane Karl, Lisa moved northward through
the central Atlantic without ever affecting land. The progenitor of
Lisa was an African wave which departed the continent on 16 September.
The system gradually developed, becoming a tropical depression on the
19th when located about 450 nm west-southwest of the Cape Verde Islands.
The synoptic-scale environment was not particularly favorable for
strengthening. Hurricane Karl lay a few hundred miles to the west-
northwest and its outflow was impinging on the depression. Also, a
large, active tropical wave was located just a few hundred miles to the
southeast. Nonetheless, a very small core began to rapidly organize,
becoming Tropical Storm Lisa on the morning of the 20th. Just 18 hours
later, Lisa reached an initial peak intensity of 60 kts. However, over
the next couple of days the tropical storm weakened due to persistent
northerly shear. Meanwhile, the disturbance to the east continued to
approach Lisa, which had essentially stalled.
The two systems began to undergo a Fujiwhara interaction. Lisa turned
southward on the 22nd and then eastward the next day as convection from
the two systems gradually merged. Lisa weakened to a tropical depression
on the 23rd, but was nonetheless able to maintain a small but distinct
LLCC throughout its merger with the disturbance. A QuikScat image from
22 September clearly depicts the two circulations, and there are some
rain-flagged vectors of 40 kts within the circulation of the easternmost
disturbance. This system had been considered a good candidate for
tropical cyclone development, and had it not moved too close to Lisa
likely would have became Tropical Storm Matthew. Lisa completed a
cyclonic loop on the 24th, and on 25 September turned sharply northward
ahead of a deep mid to upper-level trough. As the shear abated Lisa
began to intensify again as it moved northward, almost reaching hurricane
intensity again on the 29th. On the 30th Lisa crossed over some cooler
water upwelled by Hurricane Karl and convection diminished, the winds
dropping to 45 kts, even though the eye feature remained distinct.
(Operationally, the MSW was dropped only to 55 kts during this time.)
On 1 October the tropical cyclone turned northeastward and accelerated
ahead of an approaching shortwave trough in the westerlies. Shear
lessened and Lisa re-intensified, even though it was over 25 C SSTs.
Early on 2 October cloud tops had cooled significantly and Dvorak
estimates reached 77 kts. Lisa became the season's ninth hurricane
at 0600 UTC on the 2nd when located about 625 nm southeast of Cape Race,
Newfoundland. Amazingly, at this time water temperatures beneath the
cyclone were around 23 C. After only about 12 hours, the cloud pattern
began to deteriorate rapidly and Lisa had lost tropical characteristics
by early on 3 October. A few hours later Lisa's remnants had been
absorbed into a frontal zone. Operationally, Lisa was upgraded briefly
to a hurricane for 6 hours on 1 October, but this was disallowed during
post-storm analysis.
No damage or casualties are known to have resulted from Tropical Storm
Lisa.
(Report written by Gary Padgett; some material taken from TPC/NHC storm
report authored by James Franklin and David Roberts.)
ADDENDA TO IVAN AND JEANNE REPORTS
----------------------------------
Huang Chunliang compiled and sent me a few rainfall observations
from the Caribbean area during the passage of Hurricane Ivan and
Hurricane Jeanne.
A. Ivan Observations
--------------------
SANTO DOMINGO, DOMINICAN REPUBLIC (WMO78486 18.43N 69.88W 14m)
300.3 mm [10/12-11/12Z]
KINGSTON/NORMAN MANLEY, JAMAICA (WMO78397 17.93N 76.78W 9m)
373.0 mm [11/06-12/06Z]
KINGSTON/NORMAN MANLEY, JAMAICA (WMO78397 17.93N 76.78W 9m)
395.8 mm [11/18-12/18Z]
B. Jeanne Observations
----------------------
MELVILLE HALL AIRPORT, DOMINICA (15.53N 61.30W)
274.8 mm [13/18-14/18Z]
MELVILLE HALL AIRPORT, DOMINICA (15.53N 61.30W)
422.3 mm [14/12-15/12Z]
MELVILLE HALL AIRPORT, DOMINICA (15.53N 61.30W)
210.3 mm [14/18-15/18Z]
C. AMALIE/TRUMAN, ST. THOMAS, PUERTO RICO (18.33N 64.97W)
189.7 mm [15/12-16/12Z]
SAN JUAN/INT., PUERTO RICO (18.42N 65.98W)
122.7 mm [15/12-16/12Z]
PUERTO PLATA, DOMINICAN REPUBLIC (19.75N 70.55W)
141.5 mm [17/12-18/12Z]
*************************************************************************
NORTHEAST PACIFIC (NEP) - North Pacific Ocean East of Longitude 180
Activity for September: 1 hurricane
1 intense hurricane
Sources of Information
----------------------
Most of the information presented below was obtained from the
various tropical cyclone products issued by the Tropical Prediction
Center/National Hurricane Center (TPC/NHC) in Miami, Florida (or the
Central Pacific Hurricane Center (CPHC) in Honolulu, Hawaii, for
locations west of longitude 140W): discussions, public advisories,
forecast/advisories, tropical weather outlooks, special tropical
disturbance statements, etc. Some additional information may have
been gleaned from the monthly summaries prepared by the hurricane
specialists and available on TPC/NHC's website. All references to
sustained winds imply a 1-minute averaging period unless otherwise
noted.
Northeast Pacific Tropical Activity for September
-------------------------------------------------
The long-term averages (1971-2003) for September in the Northeast
Pacific basin are 3.5 named storms, 2.2 hurricanes, and 1.1 intense
hurricanes (Category 3+ on the Saffir/Simpson scale). September, 2004,
was slightly below normal in this basin with two named cyclones forming.
However, both reached hurricane intensity and one, Javier, became the
most intense hurricane of the season with the estimated MSW reaching
130 kts. Also, as the month opened, intense Hurricane Howard was
moving slowly northward well west of Mexico. Howard began in August and
was covered in that month's summary. Reports on Hurricanes Isis and
Javier follow, the Javier report being authored by John Wallace. (A big
thanks to John for his assistance.)
HURRICANE ISIS
(TC-12E)
8 - 17 September
------------------------------------
Hurricane Isis was a long-lived tropical storm which very briefly
reached minimal hurricane intensity. The disturbance which spawned Isis
entered the Eastern North Pacific on 3 September and possibly was the
same tropical wave which had spawned Atlantic Hurricane Frances.
Advisories were initiated on Tropical Depression 12E at 0900 UTC on
8 September when it was centered about 475 nm south of Cabo San Lucas.
Tropical Storm Isis was christened 12 hours later, and the system
reached an initial peak intensity of 45 kts at 09/0600 UTC when located
roughly 425 nm south-southwest of Cabo San Lucas. Thereafter, persistent
easterly shear inhibited development and caused gradual weakening.
Isis was downgraded to a tropical depression for 30 hours at 2100 UTC
on the 10th. It was re-upgraded to tropical storm status at 12/0300
UTC.
From the 9th through the 13th Isis moved on a very persistent and
steady due westerly track just north of the 17th parallel. The storm
remained steady state at 45 kts for a three-day period before beginning
to intensify some on the 15th. The peak intensity of 65 kts occurred
at 15/1200 UTC, based on the appearance of an eye feature and T4.0
Dvorak classifications from TAFB and SAB. Easterly shear had diminished,
but the cyclone had turned to a northwesterly heading which took it
toward cooler SSTs and more stable air. Six hours after being upgraded
to hurricane status, Isis was downgraded back to a tropical storm, and
24 hours later to a tropical depression. The final advisory at 17/0600
UTC placed the remnant LOW about 1325 nm west-southwest of Cabo San
Lucas. Considering how rapidly the storm began to deteriorate after
the upgrade to hurricane intensity, there is the possibility that Isis
in truth never became a hurricane.
The official TPC/NHC storm report on Hurricane Isis, authored by
James Franklin and David Roberts, is available at the following link:
http://www.nhc.noaa.gov/2004isis.shtml?>
(Report written by Gary Padgett)
HURRICANE JAVIER
(TC-13E)
10 - 20 September
-------------------------------------
A. Storm Origins
----------------
The disturbance that became Javier developed quickly south of the
Isthmus of Tehuantepec on 10 September, where there had been little trace
of it only 24 hours earlier. At 2100 UTC that day it was upgraded to
Tropical Depression Thirteen-E as it tracked west-northwestward. The
depression formed much farther to the east than do most Northeast Pacific
tropical cyclones, being located about 325 nm south-southeast of Salinas
Cruz, Mexico.
B. Synoptic History
-------------------
Conditions were not wholly favorable for Thirteen-E's intensification
at first due to moderate easterly shear, probably induced by the same
ridge that was steering it west. Nevertheless, the depression had
strengthened to Tropical Storm Javier by 1500 UTC on the 11th with the
shear unabated, however. The newly-christened Javier was then located
approximately 325 nm south-southeast of Acapulco. The synoptic
environment ensured that Javier intensified slowly but steadily over the
following day. In the meantime, the ridge to its north weakened,
prompting a well-forecast turn towards the northwest late on the 12th
and into the 13th. The upper-level environment became somewhat more
favorable on the 12th, and at 2100 UTC Javier was upgraded to hurricane
status while centered about 375 nm south-southeast of Manzanillo,
Mexico.
Hurricane Javier's initially small circulation expanded modestly as
it tracked northwestward, but there was little else of note about the
storm until the remarkable developments of the 13th. At 0300 UTC that
day it was a healthy but not especially impressive 75-kt hurricane. Over
the next 12 hours, however, Javier "bombed" into a powerful Category 4
system with an estimated MSW of 120 kts. The dramatic intensification
continued until 0300 UTC on 14 September when Javier reached its
estimated peak MSW of 130 kts with an attendant CP of 930 mb. The
powerful cyclone was then located about 450 nm south of Mazatlan, Mexico.
It may have indeed been more powerful, as the MSW estimate was a
compromise between Dvorak estimates of 127 and 140 kts. This deepening
rate represents an average CP drop of 2 mb per hour, which qualifies as
rapid deepening (1) between 13/0300 UTC and 14/0300 UTC. It's worth
noting that upper-level conditions remained less than ideal throughout
Javier's intensification with shear still limiting outflow to the east.
Javier's intensity leveled off and dropped slightly after its peak,
ostensibly due to an eyewall replacement cycle, a common phenomenon in
the strongest tropical cyclones. In fact, Javier went through no less
than four, and possibly five cycles as it continued northwestward,
roughly parallel to the Mexican coast but well offshore. Javier was an
intense hurricane for 3.5 days, longer than any NEP storm since 1999's
Hurricane Dora. It also had the distinction of retaining a MSW of
120 kts or greater longer than any NEP hurricane since Hurricane Linda
in 1997. Its rather slow track over favorably warm waters was probably
a major factor contributing to its longevity.
The cyclone's MSW dropped below 100 kts late on the 16th, but abruptly
regained Category 3 status on the next advisory. However, by mid-day on
the 17th a final weakening trend began, due to both cooler waters and
increasing shear. The question grew as to whether Javier would threaten
Baja California, as a trough was forecast to further weaken the
subtropical ridge and take the cyclone northeast across the Peninsula.
For the time being, the cyclone wobbled slowly northwestward, finally
commencing the expected northward turn late on the 18th as it weakened
more rapidly to a tropical storm nearly devoid of deep convection. At
the time of its downgrade, Javier was centered approximately 175 nm
west of Cabo San Lucas on the southern tip of the Baja California
Peninsula.
Javier was downgraded to a depression the following day, based on both
satellite observations and an interesting surface observation that showed
that the MSW was considerably overestimated. Tropical Depression
Javier turned to the north-northeast and crossed the coast of Baja
California near 1200 UTC on the 19th. The last NHC advisory on Javier
was issued at 1500 UTC on the 19th while it was over the peninsula, but
the Hydrometeorological Prediction Center issued a final advisory after
it was well inland, at 0300 UTC on 20 September, when the dissipating
system was located roughly 290 km southwest of El Paso, Texas. The
convective remnant of the circulation had lost its identity by late that
day.
C. Meteorological Observations
------------------------------
According to press reports, Javier's outer circulation and storm
waves lashed Mexico's West Coast, but as of this writing any damages are
known to be minor, as the regions most affected by Javier are sparsely
populated. No fatalities are known. The remnant circulation brought
substantial rains to Mexico and the American Southwest. Hermosillo, a
city very close to Javier's track located in the usually-arid state of
Sonora, received some 16.64 in (42 cm) of rain on September 19th, though
it is not known if these numbers are the result of instrumental or
recording errors. Rainfall amounts in the U.S., as reported by the HPC,
were typically 1-1.5 in (2.5-3.8 cm), with a high of 2.66 in at Arizona's
Grand Canyon.
D. References
-------------
(1) http://www.nhc.noaa.gov/aboutgloss.shtml>
(2) http://www.hpc.ncep.noaa.gov/tropical2004/JAVIER/JAVIER_archive.shtml>
(3) http://www.nhc.noaa.gov/archive/2004/JAVIER.shtml?>
E. Editor's Note
----------------
The official TPC/NHC storm report on Hurricane Javier is now
available online at: http://www.nhc.noaa.gov/2004javier.shtml?>
The report was written by Lixion Avila. According to Lixion's
report, the African wave which was the progenitor of Javier moved
off the western African coast on 29 August. Therefore, the pre-
Javier wave apparently was the one between the wave which spawned
Atlantic Tropical Depression 10 and the wave which became mighty
Hurricane Ivan.
(Report written by John Wallace)
*************************************************************************
NORTHWEST PACIFIC (NWP) - North Pacific Ocean West of Longitude 180
Activity for September: 5 tropical depressions **
2 tropical storms ++
1 typhoon
** - none of these were classified as tropical depression by JTWC; two
were treated as tropical depressions by JMA only; two others by
JMA and NMCC; and another by JMA and PAGASA
++ - one of these was not classified as a tropical storm by JTWC, but was
by several of the Asian TCWCs
Sources of Information
----------------------
Most of the information presented below is based upon tropical
cyclone warnings and significant tropical weather outlooks issued
by the Joint Typhoon Warning Center of the U. S. Air Force and
Navy (JTWC), located at Pearl Harbor, Hawaii. In the companion
tropical cyclone tracks file, I normally annotate track coordinates
from some of the various Asian warning centers when their center
positions differ from JTWC's by usually 40-50 nm or more. All
references to sustained winds imply a 1-minute averaging period
unless otherwise noted.
Michael V. Padua of Naga City in the Philippines, owner of the
Typhoon 2000 website, normally sends me cyclone tracks based upon
warnings issued by the Japanese Meteorological Agency (JMA) and the
Philippines' Atmospheric, Geophysical & Astronomical Services
Administration (PAGASA). Also, Huang Chunliang of Fuzhou City, China,
sends data taken from synoptic observations around the Northwest
Pacific basin. A very special thanks to Michael and Chunliang for
the assistance they so reliably provide.
In the title line for each storm I have referenced all the cyclone
names/numbers I have available: JTWC's depression number, the
JMA-assigned name (if any), JMA's tropical storm numeric designator,
and PAGASA's name for systems forming in or passing through their
area of warning responsibility.
Northwest Pacific Tropical Activity for September
-------------------------------------------------
Tropical cyclone activity in the Northwest Pacific basin was decidedly
less than that seen in August. Three tropical cyclones were named by
JMA--one of these not considered a tropical storm by JTWC--and only one
system reached typhoon intensity. As the month opened, long-lived
Typhoon Songda was passing through the northern Mariana Islands on its
way to an eventual landfall in Japan, with a stopover in Okinawa along
the way. (The complete report on Songda may be found in the August
summary.) Early in the month Tropical Storm Sarika, like its two
predecessors (Chaba and Songda) passed through the northern Marianas,
but was much less intense than those typhoons had been in that region.
Sarika encountered cooler waters and hostile shear and weakened as it
was moving in the general direction of Japan. During the second week
of September, Tropical Storm Haima formed near southwestern Taiwan, moved
northeastward across the island, then turned northwestward and made
landfall in China south of Shanghai. Haima was classified as a tropical
storm by all the Asian TCWCs but not by JTWC. And late in the month,
Typhoon Meari became another in a series of tropical cyclones to affect
the Japanese islands this season.
Five systems were treated as tropical depressions by one or more of
the Asian warning centres. Two of these were weak and short-lived and
were classified as tropical depressions by JMA only. One was a weak
LOW just east of Taiwan on 12 and 13 September, and the other occurred
on 20 September deep in the tropics around 160E. No tracks were given
for these systems in the companion tropical cyclone tracks file.
Short reports follow for the other three tropical depressions. Huang
Chunliang sent some meteorological observations for these systems, so
I have included very brief histories of these three depressions. Also,
standard reports follow for Tropical Storms Sarika and Haima and for
Typhoon Meari/Quinta, all authored by Kevin Boyle.
TROPICAL STORM SARIKA
(TC-23W / STS 0419)
3 - 9 September
-----------------------------------------
Sarika: contributed by Cambodia, is a type of singing bird.
A. Storm Origins
----------------
As Super Typhoon Songda was approaching Okinawa, the next tropical
cyclone was already taking shape and was first mentioned in JTWC's STWO
at 0600 UTC 4 September when it was located approximately 440 nm east of
Saipan. At this time, animated multi-spectral imagery revealed that
convection had become consolidated around a LLCC. Also, satellite
imagery revealed the formation of both poleward and equatorward outflow
channels. An upper-level analysis indicated a TUTT cell situated 7 to 8
degrees to the northwest, light wind shear, and favourable diffluence.
In addition, 850-mb vorticity was elongated, stretching along a west-east
axis. Due to the rapid organization and already advanced stage of this
system, the potential was raised straight to 'fair'. This was upgraded
to 'good' and a TCFA issued at 04/1730 UTC after a spiral banding feature
appeared in enhanced infrared satellite imagery. The first warning was
issued six hours later, locating the centre 280 nm east-northeast of
Saipan. JMA had been classifying the storm as a tropical depression
since their first bulletin at 03/1800 UTC.
B. Synoptic History
-------------------
On the 4th of September the northern Marianas were facing the prospect
of a third tropical cyclone after only recently being pounded by Super
Typhoons Chaba and Songda. By 0126 UTC 5 September a typhoon warning
was in place for the island of Agrihan. Moving west-northwestwards along
the southern periphery of the subtropical ridge, Tropical Depression 23W
was upgraded to Tropical Storm Sarika by both JTWC and JMA at 05/0000
UTC. The two agencies estimated their respective MSWs at 45 kts (1-min
avg) and 50 kts (10-min avg). Multi-spectral satellite imagery revealed
organized convection over a possible banding eye at this time. An upper-
level LOW located to the southeast was providing an efficient eastern
outflow channel in addition to the decent equatorial outflow. It seemed
only a matter of time before Sarika would reach typhoon intensity,
especially considering the reputation that small tropical cyclones have
for rapid strengthening. Rapid intensification ensued for awhile with
the MSW rising to 55 kts at 05/0600 UTC and to 60 kts at 05/1200 UTC.
The strengthening phase then ended and 60 kts turned out to be the peak
intensity for Sarika.
At 1200 UTC 5 September Tropical Storm Sarika was moving west-
northwest at 17 kts and passing 220 nm north of Saipan. Shortly
afterward, the system's centre made its closest approach to Agrihan,
tracking 10 nm south of that island. Near-typhoon conditions occurred
on both Agrihan and Pagan while tropical storm-force winds were
experienced on Alamagan. At its peak Sarika possessed a very compact
wind field with gales extending no further than 90 nm from the centre
while the radius of strongest winds never exceeded 15 nm. While all
this was happening, microwave imagery showed no substantial increase in
deep convection. By 05/1800 UTC Sarika had turned westwards and was
maintaining 60-kt winds. At this time, the storm was centred about
100 nm west of Agrihan.
Tropical Storm Sarika was tracking west-northwest at 16 kts at 0000
UTC 6 September approximately 300 nm south-southeast of Iwo Jima. Its
intensity had changed little since the previous day and its peak MSW of
60 kts was further maintained until 16/1800 UTC when Sarika began to
weaken. The 06/1200 UTC prognosis had indicated no further strengthening
as the system was moving away from the upper-level LOW that had
accelerated the eastern outflow channel, and also because Sarika was
headed for a hostile shearing environment associated with Typhoon
Songda's outflow. This shearing had begun at 06/1800 UTC when microwave
imagery revealed a partially-exposed LLCC with the deep convection being
displaced to the southwest. The MSW had fallen to 50 kts by this time.
The prognostic reasoning message also forecast a change to a poleward
track as the subtropical ridge shifted eastwards. This started to occur
at 0000 UTC 7 September when Sarika turned to the north-northwest at a
slower pace of 8 kts, approximately 820 nm south of Tokyo, Japan. At
this time, microwave imagery revealed a fully-exposed LLCC. Sarika
accelerated to 14 kts while weakening to a 45-kt tropical storm. It
then slowed as it turned northward at 07/1200 UTC with winds further
decreasing to 35 kts. Associated deep convection had separated 90 nm
from the centre and Sarika was now struggling in the face of strong
shear, an unfavourably-placed TUTT cell, and cooler than normal SSTs due
to upwelling from Super Typhoons Chaba and Songda. It was downgraded to
a 30-kt tropical depression at 07/1800 UTC and JTWC issued the final
warning, locating the centre 645 nm south of Tokyo, Japan. JMA
maintained this system as a tropical storm until 08/0000 UTC when that
agency demoted Sarika to a depression.
JMA estimated a peak MSW of 55 kts and a CP of 980 mb while NMCC
classified Sarika as a 60-kt Severe Tropical Storm. The only other
Asian TCWC to issue bulletins on this system, CWB of Taiwan, estimated
a peak intensity of 55 kts.
C. Damage and Casualties
------------------------
There were no known damages or casualties associated with Tropical
Storm Sarika.
(Report written by Kevin Boyle)
TROPICAL DEPRESSION
(NMCC-TD04 / NRL Invest 96W)
8 - 11 September
------------------------------------------------
This tropical depression, designated TD-04 by the NMC of China,
formed on 8 September well to the east of Taiwan, just southeast of
the Sakishima Islands. The system moved slowly in a north-northwesterly
direction over the next couple of days, dissipating as it entered the
southern Yellow Sea east-northeast of Shanghai on the 11th. The system
was treated as a tropical depression by JMA, NMCC and the CWB of Taiwan.
JTWC issued a TCFA for the disturbance at 10/1400 UTC but cancelled it
24 hours later. The following brief report was compiled and sent by
Huang Chunliang.
(A) Report on Tropical Depression NMC04 from China
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
1. Rainfall Obs
---------------
Linjiang, Jilin Province (WMO54374,41.72N/126.92E) 72.7 mm [12/00-13/00Z]
Ji'an, Jilin Province (WMO54377,41.10N/126.15E) 58.1 mm [12/00-13/00Z]
2. Wind Obs
-----------
Both Shengsi (WMO58472, 30.73N/122.45E, Alt 81m) and Dachen Dao
(WMO58666, 28.45N/121.90E, Alt 84m), Zhejiang Province reported sustained
winds of gale force on the 11th.
(B) Report on Tropical Depression NMC04 from Japan
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Naha,Okinawa Pref. (WMO47936,26.21N/127.69E) 63.5 mm [11/00-12/00Z]
Miyakojima,Okinawa Pref. (WMO47927,24.79N/125.28E) 51.0 mm [11/00-12/00Z]
(Report by Huang Chunliang)
TROPICAL STORM HAIMA
(TC-24W / TS 0420 / OFEL)
10 - 14 September
---------------------------------------------
Haima: contributed by China, is the sea horse
A. Storm History
----------------
An interim STWO was issued by JTWC at 10/1400 UTC mentioning an
area of convection which had persisted approximately 150 nm southwest
of Taipei, Taiwan. The convection was located along the southern
periphery of a possible LLCC. An upper-level analysis indicated
moderate vertical shear and favorable divergence. The development
potential was upgraded to 'fair' at 1700 UTC as the system continued
to slowly gain in organization. At 11/0600 UTC the system was centred
135 nm south-southwest of Taipei, Taiwan, tracking across the island,
and had lost much of its associated deep convection. However, the LLCC
was still intact east of Taiwan. JMA began classifying the storm as a
tropical depression at 11/0000 UTC, upgrading to a 35-kt tropical storm
at 11/1200 UTC and naming it Haima. At the same time, the system was
given the PAGASA name of Ofel when that agency began issuing warnings.
At 1900 UTC 11 September animated infrared satellite imagery showed
the LLCC approximately 55 nm southeast of Taipei, Taiwan, and embedded
in a longwave trough off the coast of China. Satellite analyses
indicated that the system exhibited subtropical characteristics with a
MSW of 30 to 35 kts while QuikScat depicted an elongated wind field,
also with a MSW of 30 to 35 kts. Upper-level conditions appeared
favourable but there was a strong vertical wind shear gradient associated
with the frontal boundary. However, the potential was there for the LLCC
to disengage from the frontal zone and become fully tropical. Therefore,
a TCFA was issued. At 12/0600 UTC Haima was centred 25 nm east-southeast
of Taipei and moving north-northwest at 6 kts. At this time multi-
spectral imagery indicated that the deep convection associated with the
LLCC had decreased. Radar showed that most of the convection was located
mainly in the western and southern quadrants. However, the possibility
of a tropical cyclone forming remained 'good'.
JTWC's first warning on Tropical Depression Haima was issued at 1800
UTC 12 September with the centre located approximately 100 nm north-
northeast of Taipei, Taiwan, and moving north-northwest at 5 kts. The
system then tracked northwestwards towards the southeast coast of China.
At 13/0000 UTC it was located 240 nm south of Shanghai, China. Haima
made landfall south of Shanghai at 13/0500 UTC before turning towards
the west-northwest six hours later. It then resumed its northwesterly
heading at 13/1800 UTC, the time of issuance of the final warning by
JTWC. At this time, satellite imagery revealed that Haima had become a
completely sheared system due to interaction with the baroclinic zone
located to its west and all its core convection had gone. JMA's last
mention of Haima was at 14/0000 UTC.
In JTWC's eyes, Haima's MSW (1-min avg) never exceeded 30 kts but
all Asian agencies regarded this system as a 35-kt tropical storm at
its peak. JMA estimated 40-kt winds and CP of 996 mb from 11/1800 UTC
to 12/0600 UTC while PAGASA classified Ofel as a 35-kt storm while it
was located within their AOR.
Editor's Note: The reason JTWC did not issue warnings on this system
on 11 September was that they considered it to be subtropical. STWOs
issued on the 11th and 12th acknowledged the existence of 35-kt winds,
but it was felt that the system was not fully tropical. There were
some who disagreed with this assessment. David Roth wrote in an e-mail:
"After checking the JTWC site and looking at the image from 1900 UTC,
I don't see anything subtropical about it. It has central convection
and looks like a TD or weak TS. There does seem to be a front draping
over it, but nothing more. Lots of TCs have fronts draping over the
system (in the Atlantic anyway)."
B. Huang Chunliang Reports
--------------------------
Following are reports compiled and sent by Huang Chunliang concerning
observations and storm effects in China, Japan and Korea, respectively.
A special thanks to Chunliang for sending the data. (To convert from
metres/second (m/s) to knots, divide m/s by 0.51444, or to approximate,
simply double the m/s value.)
(1) Report on Tropical Storm 0421 (Haima) from China
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
{Part I}. Landfall
==================
According to the NMC warnings, Tropical Storm 0421 (Haima) made
landfall in Yongqiang Town, Longwan District, Wenzhou City, Zhejiang
Province around 13/0400 UTC with a MSW of 18 m/s and a CP of 998 hPa.
{Part II}. Meteorological Obs from Taiwan
=========================================
1. Daily Rainfall [09/16-10/16Z] (only Top 5 listed)
----------------------------------------------------
Ranking Station ID City/County Rainfall (mm)
-------- ---------------- ---------------- -------------
01 CWB C0A88 Taipei County 290.0
02 CWB C0A89 Taipei County 208.5
03 CWB C1C48 Taoyuan County 202.5
04 WMO 46685 Taipei County 195.0
05 CWB C0A9G Taipei City 188.5
2. Daily Rainfall [10/16-11/16Z] (only Top 5 listed)
----------------------------------------------------
Ranking Station ID City/County Rainfall (mm)
-------- ---------------- ---------------- -------------
01 CWB C0A9G Taipei City 611.5
02 CWB C1A65 Taipei County 393.0
03 WMO 46685 Taipei County 388.0
04 CWB C1D48 Taoyuan County 386.0
05 CWB C1A64 Taipei County 383.5
3. Daily Rainfall [11/16-12/16Z] (only Top 5 listed)
----------------------------------------------------
Ranking Station ID City/County Rainfall (mm)
-------- ---------------- ---------------- -------------
01 CWB C1D40 Hsinchu County 371.0
02 CWB C0D36 Hsinchu County 333.5
03 CWB 01A21 Taipei County 291.0
04 CWB C1C46 Taoyuan County 289.5
05 CWB C1D42 Hsinchu County 283.0
4. Peak sustained winds & gusts
-------------------------------
Only those stations that reported peak gusts >= 24.5 m/s (i.e.,
Beaufort Force 10 or higher) are given:
Peak SW Peak Gust
Station (WMO ID) (mps/dir/Local Date) (mps/dir/Local Date)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Lanyu (46762/59567, Alt 325m) 25.4/230/11th 35.9/220/11th
Dongshi (46730, Alt 45m) 19.4/ 50/11th 29.6/ 50/11th
An Bu (46691, Alt 1450m) 17.9/350/12th 28.4/ 20/12th
Wu-Chi (46777, Alt 5m) 14.6/350/11th 24.5/360/11th
{Part III}. Meteorological Obs from Mainland China
==================================================
1. Fuzhou City, Fujian Province
-------------------------------
Pingtan (WMO58944), Fuzhou City recorded a 24-hr rainfall amount of
250.8 mm [09/00-10/00Z], which turned out to be a new record of daily
rainfall for September for the station, the former one being 242.4 mm
recorded on Sep 5, 1958.
2. Zhejiang, Shandong, Jiangsu and Hebei Provinces
--------------------------------------------------
During the 72-hr period ending at 15/00Z, torrential rains were
reported by the provinces of Zhejiang, Shandong, Jiangsu and Hebei with
Fenghua, Zhejiang reporting the highest accumulation of 228 mm.
Coastal Zhejiang reported gusts of Beaufort Force 8 to 10 during the
storm with Kanmen reported the highest value of 27.5 m/s.
Coastal Qingdao City, Shandong Province reported a peak gust of
Beaufort Force 10 on the 14th.
{Part IV}. Damage
=================
1. Zhejiang
-----------
The storm damaged 7,800 ha. of farmland in Zhejiang Province, where
direct economic losses were estimated to have been over 53 million yuan.
2. Fuzhou, Fujian
-----------------
Floodings and landslides were reported in the county of Pingtan.
Preliminary statistics indicated that the torrential rains (Sep 7-10),
including those triggered by the monsoonal flow that gestated the
pre-Haima depression (i.e., TD-05 per NMC), had caused 54.6 million
yuan of direct economic losses in Pingtan County and Changle City
(also a sub-city of Fuzhou City).
(2) Brief Report on Typhoon 0420 (Haima) from Japan
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
1. Ishigakijima, Okinawa (WMO47918, 24.34N 124.16 E, Alt 6m)
------------------------------------------------------------
Peak sustained wind: 16.7 m/s [11/2240Z]
Peak gust: 26.8 m/s [11/1225Z]
Peak hourly rainfall: 34.5 mm [12/10-12/11Z]
2. Yonagunijima, Okinawa (WMO47912, 24.47N 123.01E, Alt 30m)
------------------------------------------------------------
Peak sustained wind: 19.1 m/s [11/2120Z]
Peak gust: 31.1 m/s [11/2037Z]
Peak hourly rainfall: 54.0 mm [12/13-12/14Z]
3. Kabira, Okinawa (JMA94036, 24.46N 124.14E, Alt 7m)
-----------------------------------------------------
Peak hourly rainfall: 54.5 mm [12/10-12/11Z]
(3) Brief Report on Tropical Storm Haima - Rainfall Obs from Korea
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
WANDO (34.40N 126.70E) 104.5 mm [11/00-12/00Z]
HEUKSANDO (34.68N 125.45E) 91.0 mm [11/00-12/00Z]
SEOSAN (36.77N 126.50E) 75.0 mm [11/00-12/00Z]
GWANGJU (35.17N 126.90E) 67.0 mm [11/00-12/00Z]
GUNSAN (35.98N 126.70E) 60.5 mm [11/00-12/00Z]
MUNSAN (37.88N 126.75E) 59.0 mm [11/00-12/00Z]
DONGDUCHEON (37.90N 127.07E) 58.5 mm [11/00-12/00Z]
INCHEON (37.48N 126.63E) 57.0 mm [11/00-12/00Z]
JEJU (33.52N 126.53E) 54.0 mm [11/00-12/00Z]
SUWON (37.27N 126.98E) 54.0 mm [11/00-12/00Z]
SEOUL (37.57N 126.97E) 52.5 mm [11/00-12/00Z]
(Section A written by Kevin Boyle; Section B by Huang Chunliang)
TROPICAL DEPRESSION PABLO
(NRL Invest 92W)
14 - 18 September
---------------------------------------------
This system was considered a tropical depression by JMA, PAGASA,
the CWB of Taiwan and the Thai Meteorological Department with PAGASA
assigning the name Pablo. JTWC released no warnings, but issued a
TCFA at 16/2030 UTC and a second alert 24 hours later. However,
the formation alert was cancelled at 18/2100 UTC. Tropical Depression
Pablo formed deep in the Philippine Sea east of Mindanao, moved west-
ward across that island, thence turning northwestward and emerging into
the South China Sea near the Calamian Group. After crossing the
Philippine Archipelago the depression began to slowly weaken but limped
across the South China Sea to near the central Vietnamese coastline
before dissipating on the 18th. The maximum winds estimated by any
agency were 30 kts. Following is a very brief report of some rainfall
observations compiled and sent by Huang Chunliang.
Brief Report on Tropical Depression Pablo
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Rainfall Obs from Viet Nam & Thailand
=====================================
Vietnam
-------
THANH HOA (WMO48840,19.75N/105.78E) 134.5 mm [18/12-19/12Z]
VINH (WMO48845,18.67N/105.68E) 124.3 mm [18/12-19/12Z]
Thailand
--------
UBON RATCHATHANI (WMO48407,15.25N/104.87E) 103.5 mm [18/18-19/18Z]
(Report by Huang Chunliang)
TROPICAL DEPRESSION
(NMCC-TD06 / NRL Invest 93W)
15 - 16 September
------------------------------------------------
This tropical depression, designated TD-06 by the NMC of China,
formed in the northern South China Sea on 15 September well to the
southeast of Hong Kong and to the southwest of Taiwan. It moved
north-northeastward and was located along the coast of China south
of Fuzhou City early on the 16th when warnings were discontinued.
The remnants apparently continued northward, bringing moderate rain-
falls as far north as Korea. JMA, NMCC and the CWB of Taiwan all
treated this system as a tropical depression. JTWC did not issue
warnings nor a TCFA for the disturbance--it was assigned a 'fair'
potential for development on the 15th. The following brief report
was compiled and sent by Huang Chunliang.
(A) Report on Tropical Depression NMC06 from China
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
{Part I}. Landfall
==================
According to the NMC warnings, Tropical Depression 06 made landfall
in Jinjiang City (a sub-city of Quanzhou City), Fujian Province around
15/1900 UTC with a MSW of 15 m/s and a CP of 1004 hPa. Interestingly,
TD-06's track (SW-->NE) along the coastline of Fujian just looked like
the reverse of that followed earlier by Typhoon Aere (NE-->SW).
{Part II}. Meteorological Obs
=============================
1. Fujian (rain & wind)
-----------------------
During the 62-hr period ending at 16/14Z, rains >100 mm were recorded
in 26 cities/counties, 9 of which reported rains >200 mm. Huian County
and Jinjiang City reported rains exceeding 300 mm with the former
reporting the highest amount of 435 mm.
The center of the depression passed by very near Fuzhou on the 16th,
saturating the biggest island (Pingtan Dao) of Fuzhou with torrential
rains of 126 mm within 6 hours [16/00--16/06Z].
Coastal Fujian reported gusts of Beaufort Force 8 to 10. Significant
obs from insular automatic stations included: Nanri--27.7 m/s,
Weitou--20.6 m/s, etc.
2. Taiwan & Zhejiang (rain)
---------------------------
Dongshi (WMO46730), Taiwan 127 mm [14/16-15/16Z]
Kinmen (WMO46787), Taiwan 109 mm [14/16-15/16Z]
Banciao (WMO46688), Taiwan 100 mm [14/16-15/16Z]
Yuhuan (WMO58667), Zhejiang 106 mm [16/00-17/00Z]
Dachen Dao (WMO58666), Zhejiang 83 mm [16/18-17/06Z]
{Part III}. Damage and Casualties
=================================
Preliminary statistics indicated that the depression had caused
340 million yuan of direct economic losses and was responsible for six
deaths in the Fujian Province. TD-06 affected 1,269,000 residents of
147 towns of 3 cities in the province, where 1,400 houses were toppled,
123 embankments were damaged and some 92,000 people were evacuated.
Also, floodings and landslides were reported to have been triggered by
torrential rains in a few districts.
(B) Report on Tropical Depression NMC06 from Japan
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Rainfall obs:
IZUHARA (34.20N/129.30E) 70.0 mm [17/00-18/00Z]
(C) Report on Tropical Depression NMC06 from Korea
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Rainfall obs:
SEOGWIPO (33.25N/126.57E) 59.0 mm [17/00-18/00Z]
SEOGWIPO (33.25N/126.57E) 63.0 mm [17/12-18/12Z]
WANDO (34.40N/126.70E) 56.0 mm [17/00-18/00Z]
WANDO (34.40N/126.70E) 55.0 mm [17/12-18/12Z]
(Report by Huang Chunliang)
TYPHOON MEARI
(TC-25W / TY 0421 / QUINTA)
20 September - 1 October
-----------------------------------------------
Meari: contributed by DPR (North) Korea, means 'echo'
A. Storm Origins
----------------
At 1030 UTC 18 September an area of convection had persisted
approximately 510 nm east of Guam and was initially mentioned in a
STWO issued by JTWC at this time. Initially a 'poor' development
potential area, the rather disorganized system began to evolve with
deep convection consolidating over a possible LLCC. However, 'poor'
potential was maintained until 19/1300 UTC, when it was raised to
'fair'. A TCFA followed at 19/2000 UTC, and this was replaced by the
first warning at 20/0000 UTC. Tropical Depression 25W at this time
was located just 35 nm southeast of Guam. At the same time, JMA also
began writing bulletins, classifying the system as a 30-kt (10-min
avg) tropical depression. There was little change in intensity
during the 20th as dry air entrainment inhibited further development
and the MSW remained at 30 kts. Tropical Depression 25W turned more
westward and began to accelerate as it travelled along the southern
periphery of a mid-level steering ridge.
B. Synoptic History
-------------------
At 0000 UTC 21 September both JTWC and JMA upgraded Tropical
Depression 25W to a tropical storm, the latter agency assigning the
name Meari. At this time it was moving away from Guam, centred at
that time 180 nm to the west. Continuing west-northwest, Meari
turned towards the northwest as it intensified steadily. A 37-GHz
microwave image at 21/1200 UTC showed early indications of a banding-
type eye, and the MSW climbed to 55 kts at 21/1800 UTC. At 22/0000
UTC Meari was still heading in a northwesterly direction at around 7 kts
and was located approximately 320 nm west-northwest of Guam. The
system was upgraded to typhoon intensity at 22/1200 UTC after CI
estimates had reached 65 kts. Typhoon Meari possessed a very
asymmetric circulation. For example, the 22/1800 UTC JTWC warning
(#12) reported gales extending up to 50 nm in the southern semicircle
but to a distance of 150 nm in the northeast quadrant. Typhoon-force
winds covered an area 20 nm over the northern semicircle but only 5 nm
to the south.
Typhoon Meari began to intensify more rapidly on the 23rd. The storm
was still tracking towards the northwest and was centred approximately
475 nm south-southwest of Iwo Jima at 0000 UTC 23 September. The MSW
had increased to 75 kts at this time, and rose to 90 kts six hours later
when multi-spectral satellite imagery depicted a well-developed eye.
Meari became a strong 100-kt typhoon at 23/1200 UTC as it approached the
eastern boundary of PAGASA's area of responsibility. The storm then
changed onto a brief west-northwesterly heading as it crossed 135 degrees
longitude and was then assigned the name Quinta by PAGASA. After
reaching 120 kts at 24/0600 UTC, intensification slowed and this strength
was maintained for the rest of the day. Meari was still suffering from
the effects of dry air entrainment, and as a result, deep convection had
decreased in the northwest quadrant by 24/1800 UTC. The MSW began to
nudge downward through the day, during which time the storm continued on
a general northwesterly track, passing 70 nm south of Okinawa at
25/1800 UTC. Meari weakened to 90 kts at 26/0000 UTC as the storm
turned west-northwestward and decelerated. The storm then began to
re-intensify in a more favourable environment, reaching a secondary
peak of 105 kts at 26/1800 UTC.
Typhoon Meari ground to a halt at 0000 UTC 27 September while located
approximately 170 nm west of Okinawa as it became temporarily stuck
between two HIGHs. A shortwave trough moving eastward through China
was forecast to pick up the tropical cyclone and recurve it towards
Japan. A slow northward drift began at 27/0600 UTC and this motion
essentially carried the system into more hostile conditions to the
north. As a result, weakening began and the MSW dropped to 90 kts by
27/1200 UTC. Meari's deep convection decreased as the storm turned
northeast into an area of strong upper-level shearing associated with
the subtropical jet to the north. By 28/0000 UTC the intensity was
down to 75 kts when the typhoon was located 315 nm south-southwest of
Sasebo, Japan. But Meari managed to maintain this strength and even
appeared to get itself together a little at 28/0600 UTC when convection
began to increase. By 28/1800 UTC Meari was beginning its approach to
the Japanese island of Kyushu.
Multi-spectral satellite imagery and radar fixes indicated that
Typhoon Meari made landfall over the southern tip of Kyushu at 0000
UTC 29 August with a MSW of 70 kts. At this time, the centre of the
storm, having turned towards the east-northeast, was located 85 nm
south-southeast of Sasebo, Japan. Meari proceeded to weaken as it
tracked across land and was downgraded to a 60-kt tropical storm at
29/0600 UTC, based on CI estimates and synoptic observations from
Shikoku. The forward motion began to accelerate as Meari started to
interact with the westerlies, and the combination of dry air entrainment
and vertical wind shear sapped the tropical cyclone's strength further.
The MSW dropped to 35 kts at 29/1800 UTC, the time of the final warning
issued by JTWC. JMA followed the system until 30/0300 UTC, when it was
dropped as a tropical cyclone, but continued tracking the remnant LOW
eastwards into the Pacific via their routine shipping bulletins.
C. Damages and Casualties
-------------------------
News reports indicate that at least 18 people died with several more
reported missing as a result of Typhoon Meari. The worst affected
areas appeared to be the prefectures of Mie and Ehime where
torrential rains caused widespread flooding and mudslides destroyed
several homes. More than 350 flights were cancelled. Also, train
and ferry services were suspended, stranding thousands of people.
D. Huang Chunliang Report
-------------------------
Following is the report received from Huang Chunliang of meteoro-
logical observations from various Japanese stations in association
with Typhoon Meari. A special thanks to Chunliang for sending the
data. (To convert metres/sec (m/s) to knots, divide m/s by 0.51444.
For an approximation, simply double the m/s value.)
{Part I}. Landfall Obs (based on the JMA warnings)
==================================================
1. Typhoon 0421 (MEARI) made landfall near Kushikino City, Kagoshima
Prefecture around 28/2330 UTC with a MSW of 30 m/s and a CP of
970 hPa.
2. Typhoon 0421 (MEARI) made landfall near Sukumo City, Kochi Prefecture
around 29/0600 UTC with a MSW of 30 m/s and a CP of 980 hPa.
3. Typhoon 0421 (MEARI) made landfall near Osaka City around 29/1130
UTC with a MSW of 30 m/s and a CP of 985 hPa.
{Part II}. Top-5 Storm Total [24/1500-30/1500Z] Obs
===================================================
Ranking Prefecture Station Rainfall (mm)
-------------------------------------------------------------
01 Mie Owase 904
02 Nara Mt.Hidegatake 785
03 Mie Kayumi 601
04 Nara Kamikitayama 499
05 Kochi Hongawa 464
{Part III}. Top-5 Daily Rainfall Obs
====================================
Ranking Prefecture Station Rainfall (mm)
----------------------------------------------------------------------
01 Mie Owase 741 [28/1500-29/1500Z]
02 Nara Mt.Hidegatake 583 [28/1500-29/1500Z]
03 Mie Kayumi *498 [28/1500-29/1500Z]
04 Mie Tsu *427 [28/1500-29/1500Z]
05 Mie Mihama 393 [28/1500-29/1500Z]
{Part IV}. Top-5 1-hr Rainfall Obs
==================================
Ranking Prefecture Station Rainfall (mm)
----------------------------------------------------------------------
01 Mie Miyagawa #*139 [28/2340-29/0040Z]
02 Mie Owase 133 [28/2150-28/2250Z]
03 Nara Mt.Hidegatake *109 [28/2320-29/0020Z]
04 Mie Mihama 107 [28/2220-28/2320Z]
05 Hyogo Gunge *104 [29/0920-29/1020Z]
05 Oita Kunimi *104 [29/0020-29/0120Z]
{Part V}. Top-5 Peak Sustained Wind (10-min avg) Obs
====================================================
Ranking Station Peak wind (mps)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
01 Kagoshima, Kagoshima (WMO47827, Alt 4m) 31.5 [28/2220Z]
02 Makurazaki, Kagoshima (WMO47831, Alt 30m) 31.4 [28/2150Z]
03 Aburatsu, Miyazaki (WMO47835, Alt 3m) 28.2 [29/0040Z]
04 Tomogashima, Wakayama (JMA65036, Alt 43m) 25 [29/1030Z]
05 Omura, Nagasaki (JMA84371, Alt 3m) 24 [29/0040Z]
{Part VI}. Top-5 Peak Gust Obs
==============================
Ranking Station Peak wind (mps)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
01 Kagoshima, Kagoshima (WMO47827, Alt 4m) 52.7 [28/2213Z]
02 Makurazaki, Kagoshima (WMO47831, Alt 30m) 51.4 [28/2108Z]
03 Aburatsu, Miyazaki (WMO47835, Alt 3m) 43.1 [29/0038Z]
04 Unzendake, Nagasaki (WMO47818, Alt 678m) 42.0 [29/0221Z]
05 Akune, Kagoshima (WMO47823, Alt 40m) 40.1 [29/0002Z]
{Part VII}. Top-5 SLP Obs
=========================
Ranking Station Min SLP (hPa)
----------------------------------------------------------------
01 Kagoshima, Kagoshima (WMO47827) 975.5 [28/2314Z]
02 Makurazaki, Kagoshima (WMO47831) 976.9 [28/2244Z]
03 Nobeoka, Miyazaki (WMO47822) 980.1 [29/0320Z]
04 Miyakonojo, Miyazaki (WMO47829) 980.9 [29/0059Z]
04 Miyazaki, Miyazaki (WMO47830) 980.9 [29/0155Z]
{Part VIII} Tornado Obs
=======================
Place Category Time (approx.)
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Nago City, Okinawa Prefecture F1 27/1130Z
Nakijin Village, Okinawa Prefecture F1 27/1150Z
Toyohashi City, Aichi Prefecture F1 29/1400Z
{Part IX} References (Japanese versions only)
=============================================
http://www.data.kishou.go.jp>
http://www.osaka-jma.go.jp/gyomusyokai/kikocho/saigai/h16/ty200421.pdf>
Note 1: "*" = record-breaking values for relevant stations.
Note 2: "#" = peak value as of 29/0100Z. (Power was cut off in that
station after 29/0100Z.)
ADDENDUM TO AUGUST TROPICAL CYCLONE SUMMARY
-------------------------------------------
In the August summary I remarked on the unusually high level of
tropical cyclone activity in the Northwest Pacific basin during that
month, with 9 named tropical cyclones and 6 typhoons. (Four weak systems
were classified as tropical depressions by JMA only.) Mike Middlebrooke
at the NWS office in Guam sent me some statistics for past active Augusts
in that basin. Following are the numbers he sent:
Year August TCs Typhoons Tropical Storms Tropical Depressions
---------------------------------------------------------------------
1960 9 8 1 0
1962 8 7 0 1
1966 9 5 3 1
1967 10 3 4 3
1993 8 6 1 1
1994 9 6 3 0
1996 10 4 3 3
1997 8 6 1 1
1999 9 4 2 3
2000 9 4 3 2
2004 9 6 1 2
With 8 out of 9 TCs becoming typhoons, 1960 appears to have been the
most active. It is very interesting that no years in the 1970s nor
1980s had particularly notable Augusts. A special thanks to Mike for
sending me the information. (All the above statistics were gleaned
from JTWC's annual reports.)
*************************************************************************
NORTH INDIAN OCEAN (NIO) - Bay of Bengal and Arabian Sea
Activity for September: 1 active monsoon depression
1 tropical depression **
** - this system was not classified as a tropical depression by JTWC
North Indian Ocean Tropical Activity for September
--------------------------------------------------
No warnings were issued on any tropical systems in the Bay of Bengal
or the Arabian Sea during September, but there were two systems worthy
of mention. A monsoon depression formed during the second week of the
month at the head of the Bay of Bengal and persisted for over 10 days.
According to some information from Roger Edson, the system initially
was primarily an upper-air system in the mid-troposphere with a surface
LOW anchored against the mountains. The IMD treated this LOW as a land
depression forming in the state of West Gengal by the 12th, and continued
it as a depression through the 15th, when it was downgraded to a low-
pressure area. The LOW drifted slowly northwestward--on the 22nd it
was located over the northwestern parts of Uttar Pradesh state. Rains
spawned by the monsoon depression were responsible for some flooding
and loss of life in both India and Bangladesh.
Another system formed in the Arabian Sea during the latter days of
September and moved northwestward, eventually moving into Oman on the
29th. None of the warning agencies, including IMD and the meteorological
service of Oman, classified this LOW as a depression. However, both
SAB's and JTWC's satellite bulletins gave a Dvorak rating of T2.0, and
QuikScat data indicated winds near 30 kts, so it seems likely this system
probably was a tropical depression. This system caused some fairly
heavy rainfall in Oman on 29th and 30th after making landfall.
Brief reports follow on both these systems, compiled and sent by
Huang Chunliang. A special thanks to Chunliang for sending the data.
MONSOON DEPRESSION
(NRL Invest 91B)
10 - 22 September
--------------------------------------
A. Report from India
--------------------
{Part I}. Rainfall Obs from India (only 24-hr amounts >= 10 cm listed)
======================================================================
Bhawanipatna, ORISSA 11 cm [10/03-11/03Z]
Sonamura, TRIPURA 25 cm [12/03-13/03Z]
Belonia, TRIPURA 24 cm [12/03-13/03Z]
Agartala, TRIPURA 22 cm [12/03-13/03Z]
Sabroom, TRIPURA 11 cm [12/03-13/03Z]
Sonamura, TRIPURA 17 cm [13/03-14/03Z]
Agartala, TRIPURA 10 cm [13/03-14/03Z]
Krishnanagar, WEST BENGAL 10 cm [14/03-15/03Z]
Krishnanagar, WEST BENGAL 16 cm [15/03-16/03Z]
Tantaloi, WEST BENGAL 17 cm [16/03-17/03Z]
Suri, WEST BENGAL 11 cm [16/03-17/03Z]
Tilpara Barrage, WEST BENGAL 11 cm [16/03-17/03Z]
Rampurhat, WEST BENGAL 10 cm [16/03-17/03Z]
Dillighat, ASSAM 12 cm [17/03-18/03Z]
Barkisurya, JHARKHAND 33 cm [17/03-18/03Z]
Talaiya, JHARKHAND 23 cm [17/03-18/03Z]
Konner, JHARKHAND 13 cm [17/03-18/03Z]
Ramgarh, JHARKHAND 11 cm [17/03-18/03Z]
Hamirpur, UTTAR PRADESH 12 cm [20/03-21/03Z]
Shahjina, UTTAR PRADESH 12 cm [20/03-21/03Z]
Khajuraho, MADHYA PRADESH 18 cm [20/03-21/03Z]
Shardanagar, UTTAR PRADESH 48 cm [21/03-22/03Z]
Neemsar, UTTAR PRADESH 27 cm [21/03-22/03Z]
Palliakalan, UTTAR PRADESH 20 cm [21/03-22/03Z]
Mohana, UTTAR PRADESH 16 cm [21/03-22/03Z]
Hanumansetu, UTTAR PRADESH 15 cm [21/03-22/03Z]
Bani, UTTAR PRADESH 14 cm [21/03-22/03Z]
Lucknow (Control Room), UTTAR PRADESH 13 cm [21/03-22/03Z]
Auraiya, UTTAR PRADESH 13 cm [21/03-22/03Z]
Kalpi, UTTAR PRADESH 12 cm [21/03-22/03Z]
Kanpur (FM), UTTAR PRADESH 11 cm [21/03-22/03Z]
Bhatpurwaghat, UTTAR PRADESH 11 cm [21/03-22/03Z]
Dalmau, UTTAR PRADESH 11 cm [21/03-22/03Z]
Lucknow (AP), UTTAR PRADESH 11 cm [21/03-22/03Z]
Ankinghat, UTTAR PRADESH 11 cm [21/03-22/03Z]
Marora, UTTARANCHAL 12 cm [22/03-23/03Z]
Kotdwar, UTTARANCHAL 12 cm [22/03-23/03Z]
Okhalkanda, UTTARANCHAL 12 cm [22/03-23/03Z]
{Part II}. Damage and Casualties
================================
Press reports indicated that four or more people drowned and 55,000
were stranded in flash floods in the northeastern state of Tripura. And
3 deaths were reported in the neighboring state of West Bengal, where
flooding inundated hundreds of villages, leaving 650,000 people homeless.
What's worse, at least 33 people in the northern state of Uttar Pradesh
lost their lives during the night of September 21 due to flooding
triggered by torrential rains.
B. Report from Bangladesh
-------------------------
{Part I}. Rainfall Obs (only 24-hr amounts >= 100 mm listed)
============================================================
COX'S BAZAR (21.43N 91.93E) 143.0 mm [11/06-12/06Z]
COX'S BAZAR (21.43N 91.93E) 106.0 mm [12/00-13/00Z]
BARISAL (22.75N 90.37E) 147.2 mm [10/18-11/18Z]
BARISAL (22.75N 90.37E) 134.0 mm [11/00-12/00Z]
BARISAL (22.75N 90.37E) 143.4 mm [11/06-12/06Z]
BARISAL (22.75N 90.37E) 120.8 mm [14/12-15/12Z]
BARISAL (22.75N 90.37E) 138.8 mm [14/18-15/18Z]
BARISAL (22.75N 90.37E) 246.6 mm [15/00-16/00Z]
BARISAL (22.75N 90.37E) 280.0 mm [15/12-16/12Z]
BARISAL (22.75N 90.37E) 258.0 mm [15/18-16/18Z]
FENI (23.03N 91.42E) 239.0 mm [12/00-13/00Z]
FENI (23.03N 91.42E) 184.0 mm [13/00-14/00Z]
FENI (23.03N 91.42E) 141.0 mm [13/06-14/06Z]
DHAKA (23.77N 90.38E) 156.3 mm [12/00-13/00Z]
DHAKA (23.77N 90.38E) 239.5 mm [13/06-14/06Z]
DHAKA (23.77N 90.38E) 117.5 mm [13/18-14/18Z]
ISHURDI (24.13N 89.05E) 107.2 mm [13/00-14/00Z]
ISHURDI (24.13N 89.05E) 135.0 mm [13/12-14/12Z]
ISHURDI (24.13N 89.05E) 116.0 mm [13/18-14/18Z]
{Part II}. Press Reports
========================
1. Bangladesh recovering after severe monsoon storms
----------------------------------------------------
Source: Deutsche Presse Agentur
Date: 19 Sept 2004
Dhaka (dpa) - Life returned to near normal in Dhaka on Sunday as schools
and businesses reopened and public transport began plying city streets
after a week of heavy monsoon showers. However, a fresh bout of rain at
the weekend threatened to prolong the misery of the about 10 million
residents in Bangladesh's crowded capital city.
At least 30 people died in Dhaka and many neighbourhoods were still under
water as a result of the rain. Utility services were also under pressure
after the week-long downpour.
Weathermen said an active late monsoon dumped the heaviest rain on Dhaka
and adjoining suburbs in more than half a century.
Copyright (c) dpa Deutsche Presse-Agentur
2. Bangladesh capital paralysed by floods after heaviest rain in 50 years
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Source: Agence France-Presse
Date: 14 Sept 2004
DHAKA, Sept 14 (AFP) - Life in the Bangladeshi capital Dhaka came to a
halt Tuesday amid floods caused by the heaviest rains in half a century.
At least 18 people have died since Saturday in three days of monsoon
downpours across central and southern regions, officials said. Houses
were inundated, vehicles stranded and all schools, colleges and
government offices were closed. Many shops and private offices in the
capital also closed Tuesday, with the water level up to chest height in
some places.
Arjumand Habib, deputy director of the Meteorological Department, said
341 millimetres (13.6 inches) of rain fell Monday in Dhaka, the highest
amount recorded in the last 50 years. She added that the rains and
strong winds, caused by a low-pressure area, were weakening in central
and southern areas and were expected to move northeasterly towards the
Sylhet region and India's Assam state.
The country is still recovering from floods in July and August that left
more than 700 dead and forced hundreds of thousands to flee their homes.
They were the worst since 1998, when Bangladesh suffered its worst ever
flooding. Floodwaters in the capital were expected to take at least
24 hours to recede, Mayor Sadek Hossain Khoka said. "City dwellers can't
operate normally--they are in great misery. We are hoping that by
tomorrow afternoon the situation will start getting back to normal," he
said.
Most fishermen in the coastal Barisal region were obeying advice not to
put out to sea, but six trawlers capsized overnight and one person was
missing, officials said Tuesday. In the southeastern district of
Noakhali more than 100 mud and bamboo homes were swept away Tuesday
after a river embankment burst. In central Manikganj district, roads
were washed out by flash flooding and the weather was disrupting daily
life, deputy district administrator Rokhsana Ferdoushi said.
Ten people died Monday in weather-related accidents. Four died when a
boat capsized, while three others were electrocuted. Three more people
died when they were electrocuted in two separate incidents in south-
western Jhenidah district, the official news agency BSS said Tuesday.
At least eight died during the weekend.
The monsoon-linked floods across Bangladesh, India and Nepal during July
and August destroyed crops and livelihoods, swept away homes and killed
close to 2,000 people in the three countries. Aid agencies estimate it
will take Bangladesh, where nearly half the population subsists on under
a dollar a day, at least a year to recover from the flooding.
Copyright (c) 2004 Agence France-Presse
Received by NewsEdge Insight: 09/14/2004 07:15:52
TROPICAL DEPRESSION
(NRL Invest 93A)
25 - 30 September
---------------------------------------
Rainfall Obs from Oman
======================
SALALAH (17.03N 54.08E) 104.2 mm [29/00-30/00Z]
QAIROON HAIRITI (17.25N 54.08E) 89.4 mm [29/00-30/00Z]
MINA SALALAH (16.90N 53.92E) 63.2 mm [29/00-30/00Z]
*************************************************************************
SOUTHWEST INDIAN OCEAN (SWI) - South Indian Ocean West of Longitude 90E
Activity for September: 1 tropical depression
Southwest Indian Ocean Tropical Activity for September
------------------------------------------------------
The 2004-2005 Southern Hemisphere season got off to an early start
with the formation of a tropical depression (designated as Tropical
Depression 01) by Meteo France La Reunion. This system formed just
west of 90E and subsequently moved southeastward into Perth's AOR where
it became Tropical Cyclone Phoebe on 2 September (TC-01S per JTWC).
The report on Tropical Cyclone Phoebe is included in the following
section of this summary: Northwest Australia/Southeast Indian Ocean.
*************************************************************************
NORTHWEST AUSTRALIA/SOUTHEAST INDIAN OCEAN (AUW) - From 90E to 135E
Activity for September: 1 tropical cyclone of storm intensity
Sources of Information
----------------------
The primary sources of tracking and intensity information for
Northwest Australia/Southeast Indian Ocean tropical cyclones are
the warnings and advices issued by the Tropical Cyclone Warning
Centres at Perth, Western Australia, and Darwin, Northern Territory.
References to sustained winds imply a 10-minute averaging period
unless otherwise stated.
In the companion tropical cyclone tracks file, I occasionally
annotate positions from warnings issued by the Joint Typhoon Warning
Center (JTWC) of the U. S. Air Force and Navy, located at Pearl
Harbor, Hawaii, when they differ from the Australian centres' coor-
dinates by usually 40-50 nm or more. The JTWC warnings are also the
source of the 1-minute average maximum sustained wind values included
in the tracks file. Additionally, information describing details of
satellite imagery and atmospheric circulation features included in
the narratives is often gleaned from the JTWC warnings.
Northwest Australia/Southeast Indian Ocean
Tropical Activity for September
------------------------------------------
A tropical LOW formed just east of longitude 90E at the end of August
and was designated Tropical Disturbance 01 by MFR. In early September
the LOW drifted southeastward into Perth's AOR and intensified into
Tropical Cyclone Phoebe on the 2nd. The cyclone's life was rather brief,
having dissipated by the 4th. The following report on Phoebe is one
which I received from Joe Courtney of the Severe Weather Section at BoM
Perth, and to which I have added a few geographical references. A very
special thanks to Joe for sending me the report.
TROPICAL CYCLONE PHOEBE
(TC-01S / MFR-01)
31 August - 4 September
-------------------------------------------
A LOW developed near 3S/88E on 30 August within an unseasonably active
monsoon band, coincident with a burst in the MJO. The LOW moved to the
southeast over the next few days, passing into the Perth TCWC area of
responsibility on 1 September. The system suffered from deep-level
shear--the 850-250 hPa shear exceeded 20 knots throughout its lifetime.
On 31 August an area of deep convection developed to the west/southwest
of the LLCC. This convection was to be persistent for the following
four days, although the LLCC remained exposed for almost all of that
time. MFR issued the first bulletin on Tropical Disturbance 01 at
0600 UTC on 31 August, locating the centre approximately 850 nm north-
west of the Cocos Islands. The MSW (10-minute mean) was estimated at
25 kts.
For most of the system's lifetime, the persistent deep convection was
typically within 3/4 of a degree to the west-southwest of the low-level
centre. On the 31st and 1st, the low-level centre was not well defined.
It is likely that gales were occurring under the deep convection but only
in one quadrant. Tropical cyclone intensity was estimated at 02/0000 UTC
when the LLCC was close to the deep convection and QuikScat identified
gale-force winds in more than one quadrant. Maximum estimated intensity
of 45 knots (10-minute mean) was reached late on the 2nd when the low-
level centre moved closer to the edge of the deep convection. Perth
upgraded the LOW to Tropical Cyclone Phoebe at 0400 UTC when the system
was centred about 430 nm west-northwest of the Cocos Islands. (JTWC
had initiated warnings on TC-01S at 02/0000 UTC.)
Phoebe showed weakening signs on the 3rd but convection again flared
near the centre a few hours later. QuikScat showed gales in southern
and western quadrants at 03/1200 UTC. However, on the 4th convection
subsided and the LLCC became less well-defined. Although convection
again developed by 1200 UTC, from this point on convection fluctuated
diurnally, suggesting continued weakening. Also, by this stage Phoebe
was moving over cooler waters on the order of 25 C, having originated
over SSTs of over 27 C. Perth issued their final gale warning on the
3rd, but JTWC continued to issue warnings until 04/1200 UTC, when the
final warning placed the weakening centre about 300 nm west-northwest
of the Cocos Islands. The peak intensity (1-minute mean) estimated by
JTWC was 55 kts at 03/0000 UTC.
Phoebe remained over open waters throughout its lifetime and there
were no known impacts.
(Report based on summary received from BoM Perth, with slight editing
and a few additions by Gary Padgett)
*************************************************************************
NORTHEAST AUSTRALIA/CORAL SEA (AUE) - From 135E to 160E
Activity for September: No tropical cyclones
*************************************************************************
SOUTH PACIFIC (SPA) - South Pacific Ocean East of Longitude 160E
Activity for September: 1 non-tropical depression
South Pacific Tropical Activity for September
---------------------------------------------
No tropical cyclones formed in the Southern Hemisphere east of
160E during September. The Fiji TCWC did issue gale warnings on a
depression on 10 and 11 September. This system formed at subtropical
latitudes well east of the Dateline on the 10th and moved rather quickly
off to the southeast. Some of the Fiji bulletins referred to the LOW
as "Depression D1" instead of with the "F" suffix used for designating
tropical depressions. This, plus the latitude, suggests that this was
either a subtropical or non-tropical system.
*************************************************************************
EXTRA FEATURE
In order to shorten the amount of typing in preparing the narrative
material, I have been in the habit of freely using abbreviations and
acronyms. I have tried to define most of these with the first usage
in a given summary, but I may have missed one now and then. Most of
these are probably understood by a majority of readers but perhaps a
few aren't clear to some. To remedy this I developed a Glossary of
Abbreviations and Acronyms which I first included in the August, 1998
summary. I don't normally include the Glossary in most months in
order to help keep them from being too long. If anyone would like to
receive a copy of the Glossary, please e-mail me and I'll be happy
to send them a copy.
*************************************************************************
AUTHOR'S NOTE: This summary should be considered a very preliminary
overview of the tropical cyclones that occur in each month. The cyclone
tracks (provided separately) will generally be based upon operational
warnings issued by the various tropical cyclone warning centers. The
information contained therein may differ somewhat from the tracking and
intensity information obtained from a "best-track" file which is based
on a detailed post-seasonal analysis of all available data. Information
on where to find official "best-track" files from the various warning
centers will be passed along from time to time.
The track files are not being sent via e-mail. They can be retrieved
from the archive sites listed below. (Note: I do have a limited e-mail
distribution list for the track files. If anyone wishes to receive
these via e-mail, please send me a message.)
Both the summaries and the track files are standard text files
created in DOS editor. Download to disk and use a viewer such as
Notepad or DOS editor to view the files.
The first summary in this series covered the month of October,
1997. Back issues can be obtained from the following websites
(courtesy of Michael Bath, Michael V. Padua, Michael Pitt, Chris
Landsea, and John Diebolt):
http://australiasevereweather.com/cyclones/>
http://www.typhoon2000.ph>
http://mpittweather.com>
ftp://ftp.aoml.noaa.gov/hrd/pub/landsea/padgett/>
http://www.tropicalcyclone2005.com/>
Another website where much information about tropical cyclones may
be found is the website for the UK Meteorological Office. Their site
contains a lot of statistical information about tropical cyclones
globally on a monthly basis. The URL is:
http://www.met-office.gov.uk/sec2/sec2cyclone/sec2cyclone.html>
TROPICAL CYCLONE REPORTS AVAILABLE
JTWC now has available on its website the complete Annual Tropical
Cyclone Report (ATCR) for 2004 (2003-2004 season for the Southern
Hemisphere). ATCRs for earlier years are available also.
The URL is: http://199.10.200.33/jtwc.html>
Also, TPC/NHC has available on its webpage nice "technicolor"
tracking charts for the 2004 Atlantic and Eastern North Pacific
tropical cyclones; also, storm reports for all the 2004 Atlantic
and Eastern North Pacific cyclones are now available.
The URL is: http://www.nhc.noaa.gov>
A special thanks to Michael Bath of McLeans Ridges, New South Wales,
Australia, for assisting me with proofreading the summaries.
PREPARED BY
Gary Padgett
E-mail: [email protected]
Phone: 334-222-5327
Kevin Boyle (Eastern Atlantic, Western Northwest Pacific, South
China Sea)
E-mail: [email protected]
John Wallace (Assistance with Eastern North Pacific)
E-mail: [email protected]
Huang Chunliang (Assistance with Western Northwest Pacific, South
China Sea)
E-mail: [email protected]
Simon Clarke (Northeast Australia/Coral Sea, South Pacific)
E-mail: [email protected]
*************************************************************************
*************************************************************************
|
Document: summ0409.htm
Updated: 17th May, 2005 |
[Australian Severe Weather index] [Copyright Notice] [Email Contacts] [Search This Site] |